I would like to see MMORPG's have fair gameplay with regards to player kills, but on the other hand there really isn't a current system to allow fair gameplay. It is either rampant dominations by higher levels towards lower levels or control of the player kill system by the game developers. In short, I have yet to find a median that will be satisfying to both extremes.
I, personally, prefer the barbaric system of higher levels owning lower levels. Why? Because one day, you'll be stronger and in their shoes able to do the same. Right now, I am climbing those steps rapidly (I would say almost obsessively) so I can get out of the "noobish" state in a game called Silk Road Online (free, which is awsome). I don't like getting killed by extremly high level player, but I do realize that in an unfair world, fairness really doesn't exist. It is only fair to the person(s) who see it as fiar. Any others who disagree will undoubetly see it as totalitarian control.
The problem with all PvP implementations within MMOs to date is simple -- they are set within PvE worlds and therefore, constrained by them.
The entire question of appropriateness (ref: gank vs pk vs carebear vs whatever) is beside the point.
The entire discussion of how to effectively balance the two playstyles is easily answered, but that answer is not one that is cost effective, so they (i.e., game developers) ignore it.
To implement the answer would be to essentially build two games in one. It is ironic that so many games now offer the 'game within a game' model, but still the industry refuses to note this solution as one that would revolutionize.
The answer itself is simple, elegant, and obvious - make PvP players the environment that PvE players must succeed against.
This truth I found while reading the following entry at the blog of a friend:
There is an inherent problem with that and its that guilds will set up times to allow players to kill them to easily gain xp. I say whats the point. Make a world like your saying but with no xp. There are no levels or xp to gain. you just find better equipment that gives bonus that can help but doesn't give an enormous advantage, just small boosts. Or undertaking certain missions to track and kill certain people that are online will help you "learn" a new skill if you succeed plus 1 loot from your prey, if not your prey gets your goodies. Guild Wars struggled mightily with this.
OH MY GOD! Guild Wars gives xp for PVP! I just remembered. Its totally possible to max your levels pvp only. They just don't have a persistant world.
Like one guy said, Imagine you are hyped to play this game. The World is so beautiful, the enemy is truly evil, There are tons of fantasic loot to be had. Before you can get to any of this your forced to win 10,000 pvp battles. A PvPers perspective on the necesity of pve in current mmo's.
Originally posted by slapme7times none of them have power in real life...
i'm guessing less than 1% of the worlds population actually has control... over anything.
the rest of us get sent to schools for "education" on what corporate needs us to believe.
the people who funded the making of this game, the people who design and plan relgions, who run 2 elections with puppets on both sides etc...
lets face it, anyone playing an mmo is doing so because the laws in the us and all over the world force us into abject servitude of the rich.
you may be happy to have a job, but that job only exists because it serves someone richer than yourself.
in rl, the rich plan the lives of the poor, what hours they'll work, what conditions etc...
i guess the only people who feel "desperate" to have control over something their lives are ones that have tuned into the reality channel lately
the rest of you are chanting "freedom" and "democracy" as you race off to fight yet another war for the minority ruling elite of our country
For the sake of all, stop trying to sound smart. The rich control little, unless it's off in their own arrogant wonderland. In ancient Egypt the rich had to support EVERYONE under them, if the poor starved they'd starve too. Your statement, as the person under you has made clear, reveals to us a state of extreme apathy, perhaps your even Emo, however that is too much conjecture. If you must even make up such an excuse why not to get a job in that sense, then you clearly know little to nothing about economics. "It's better to be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and prove it." :S
Anyway, Im pretty sure this topic has been wrapped up in most ways. We've broken down the elements of the OPs argument and in doing so, maybe we have enlightened a few of our readers.
I think it's the objective of your past self to make you cringe.
if i was rich, and wanted you to work in my sweatshop, i'd put out the exact same propaganda for you to say.
in what way does this free anyone from having "responsibility"?
obey, and get paid a tiny portion of what your work was worth.
isnt that how you afford... food?
how long can you go without eating? thats how free you are.
there we go, you're free of corporate america for 1 week tops, then you die.
look how we've raped africa through imperialism... wait look how we've raped most of the world through imperialism.
remember ghandi? child labor? if we care so much about human rights, why do we set up factories in countries without a minimum wage?
ever heard of the blood diamond industry?
dont you find it a little ironic that so many little african slaves die so we can commemorate our marriages? where is that in an economics textbook? nowhere
you said "in ancient egypt, the rich had to support everyone under them"
what... ahah did you just pull that out of your world civ book?
ancient egypt enslaved entire races, much like early america "did"
slaves are worth a hell of a lot of money, thus i'm sure it was in their best interest not to let them starve,yes?
you do make a valid point. Slaveholders in the early south often higher immigrants like the irish to do particularly dangerous jobs, because it was far cheaper to let an unskilled laborer die doing a job than a slave which could be bought and sold, so in a way, the slaves of this country were alot more lucky and safe than the "free people" we are asked to be thankful to be.
a slave holder would NEVER send a slave into combat. the value of a slave was hundreds of times the value of a "citizen".
every single soldier in our army would be immediately sent home if they were slaves.
"you are probably emo, however that is too much conjecture" but yet you say it anyway, because you lack a way to substancially disprove my argument.
why does the author's social stigma somehow credit or discredit his/her statements?
"it's clear you know nothing about economics"
right... and by saying that because ancient egypt fed their slaves they were saviors...
you truly represent a valid and knowledgeable intellectual.
how does this outlook somehow free someone from responsibility? the poor in the military arent freed. the vietnam drafts werent freed. the slaves werent freed.
if you stop working, you'll starve. you havent stopped being trapped, you simply know you're trapped.
obviously, this disturbs you, so you simply label my ideas as "apathy" and "emo" rather than confronting the thoughts themselves.
we are now dependents on the system, without the rich, we die, because corporate power has created for us the means to breed to the point where we have surpassed the carrying capacity, and now need corporate production just to say alive.
just think. the native americans who own this land we live on, they once had free reign to farm and live wherever they wanted.
now you cant just start farming, because a rich person owns the land.
if you quit at your job, you cant just "return to nature"
ownership of the land, and means of production belongs to the rich. this means that the only way tosurvive, is by compliance.
maybe we are better off not knowing that... but it's still reality.
if it's not, why dont you try disproving what i said, rather than stooping to adhominem and straw manning me.
we now depend on a large slave class to support ourselves, and of course, create a master class with which to guide us, and control the media.
if we stop now, it's true that everyone dies. It doesnt mean we can't change the system to serve the majority rather than the minority, but with enough people who believe calling something "emo" reasonably disqualifies it from being intelligible thought, it looks like that wont ever happen.
facts please, not doublespeak
is it really such a crime that i have a problem with you attempting to discredit ideas without actually at least mentioning the ideas themselves?
one thing has been clarified. this does not excuse us from doing anything. if you stop obeying, you will die, so can we assume that it is no longer a valid argument that this justifies laziness?
obviously, imminent death makes "doing nothing" a pretty bad idea for the poor doesnt it? thanks.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
I dont get it if you hate PvE and just want PvP then why not play something thats suited to you then? Dont play the PvE games, go and play FPS games , stuff like BF and PS etc.
I fail to see the problem.
Trouble is as stated already, ffa pvp means that the *big tough guys* kill anyone. Not just enemy but anyone. They PK because then can not because they have to.
Lowest pop servers on most MMOs? PvP ones. Wonder why eh?
If you watch a horror film to be horrifed does that mean when you take part in a game you want to play? Surely playing a game means playing with like minded people? Like you wouldnt go to a tennis court and whine about there being no football being played.
Perhaps if you require a virtual "big man" tag to make up for rl then you need to find another playing field.
or just go find some like minded people and throw darts between each others toes...its as much fun im sure.
games set up rules, an then let players have their way.
if a player chooses to do something, it's because the game prompts him, and then allows him to do so.
maybe games should work on creating the thrill of evading high level players, ie making game mechanics more fun?
all multiplayer games focus on the interaction of people with each other.
the definition of a good game then becomes what game allows people to interact in the most stimulating and interesting ways.
when games are marginalized to just combat, there really isnt much to do but kill each other pointlessly over and over for no reason.
i think your frustration comes from bland game design, not the players who simply follow the rules.
thats a pretty tight analogy, it's just like that. i think alot of people are being stuck in an arena that isnt really enjoyable, period.
i dont think it's that your against pvp, but the vehicle designed to allow you to seems meaninglessly flacid.
in a game where you kill animals 6000 billion times over and over, dying just becomes a hassle.
if survival isnt the goal, then death is just pure tedium, rather than excitement.
again, it's the fact that the developers ask you to enjoy killing "giant plain strider" 60 million times in a row.
i dunno... i'd rather be trying to sneak back to my base through a forest avoiding wildlife and enemy combatants, then be asked to kill"giant plains strider" 50 million times and get ganked while doing so.
it all comes back to, why the hell am i killing a giant plains strider 50 millon times! this game sucks.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
i think games could really go places by expanding their options.
why not allow players to appoint leadership, political leaders? build housing, destructable housing, create police forces, laws etc...
you could have 2 completely different societies with different rules and laws, built by players.
that would be interesting combat, and it emphasizes the ideas of "forming alliances" as wow says on the back of it's box.
why did humans form civilizations and alliances in the first place?
because they had common enemies in different races, cultures, and of course the environment.
you could see entire human histories lived out in games, revolutions etc...
i think it would make things like getting ganked more meaningful, it would make people bond as friends and guild for actual protection.
thats my view on the solution to the gayness of mmo's, and of course, the solution to consensual pvp.
pvp would now be meaninful, you'd have to first develop a real reason to kill someone before doing so, rather than simply chasing everyone with a name in red.
i think that most people agree that people have a reason before they go to war... thats what makes it exciting, defending your country, that romaticism that people so enjoy.
nobody identifies with orgirmmar, or the undercity, or with stormwind, because it cant be taken, and doesnt need to be defended.
imagine if individual players actualy loved their home cities and were dedicated to defending them, if they had homes inside the walls that would be captured or burned if invading armies breeched the wall?
for a good example, just check the lord of the rings movies? combat doesnt start because people simply like killing ( haha but it can ) thats what society is, a band of people dedicated to common goals and interests.
haah imagine a giant army of players gathering outside the walls of your town, firing trenchbuchets and breaking houses into peices, people hiding behind the walls of the castle trying to avoid being hit.
that would be so badass intense! the ominous loom of battle that could take everything you earned. people grabbing their items and fleeing out of town, while others nobly stay to defend.
allow players to create and make their own decisions on whether it best suits them to run and fight.
thats the range of human actions and emotions that mmos are missing.
allow players to create game experiences, create a game that allows them to do so, rather than one that gives them nothing to do but fight where the developer mandates them too.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
slapme7times...you are so right....you are so right you blow everyone out of the water...they cant argue against your points.....you give them the possibility of excitement, fear, acheivement, loss, glory, defeat, good morality, bad morality, defender, offender, ally, enemy, law upholder, law breaker and actually caring about there character and there friends characters.... but still, they will blindly defend thats its more enjoyable to hit a giant plain strider 60 million times and get 7 feathers .....they dont have a leg to stand on in their argument
wow for example could simply create a pvp arena in a home city where fights and bets could be taken.
how cool would that be?
without allowing players to have some risk, things arent interesting.
wow and many mmo's systematically reduce themselves to having nothing to do, to having no objectives to complete because they force players to accept far too many controlling regulations that inevitably destroy the spontainaiety of human interaction.
When will i be able to run out into the woods, climb a tree to escape a tiger, build a tree fort, and seek poisons and treasure so i can become an assassin?
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Originally posted by GIRO slapme7times...you are so right....you are so right you blow everyone out of the water...they cant argue against your points.....you give them the possibility of excitement, fear, acheivement, loss, glory, defeat, good morality, bad morality, defender, offender, ally, enemy, law upholder, law breaker and actually caring about there character and there friends characters.... but still, they will blindly defend thats its more enjoyable to hit a giant plain strider 60 million times and get 7 feathers .....they dont have a leg to stand on in their argument
lol... crap!
i dunno, the sandbox game industry imo is suffering because it fails to provide people with the means to do things in a sand box world....
it could be... i guess it's pretty well documented what with wow's success that people just need to follow one quest to the next...
maybe in 20 years when technology matches imagination games like these will be affordable to make?
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
forget in 20 years...the basic sand box model was done ten years ago and is also working in 'a' current game right now and it works !! these things are far from unachievable right now! the reason eve is so successfull is because its clients from the very beggining to the present are very open minded people who refuse to be rail roaded...ok the game isnt for everyones taste including me ...but i aprreciate what eve stands for and its code of 'non existent' conduct
Originally posted by achesoma How many of these Grandma's Boy basement dweller posts do we need? Every week someone creates a post about wanting a "challenge" and all MMOs are "carebear." Let me give you some free advise. You want a challenge? Go to graduate school, learn a foreign language, take banjo lessons, volunteer at a hospital, go outside, get fresh air...to name a few examples. Video games are a simple hobby for wasting time or winding down after a hard days work(or going to classes). A bit of a reality check for you, no one in the real world gives a damn about your gaming skills. A bunch of pixels on a computer monitor does not represent a persons level of courage.
I play games to have fun. If you find fun in killing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... then you keep doing that, it's fucking boring as hell to me.
You talk about courage... What branch are you in? That's courage. tyvm.
Originally posted by SnaKey Originally posted by achesoma How many of these Grandma's Boy basement dweller posts do we need? Every week someone creates a post about wanting a "challenge" and all MMOs are "carebear." Let me give you some free advise. You want a challenge? Go to graduate school, learn a foreign language, take banjo lessons, volunteer at a hospital, go outside, get fresh air...to name a few examples. Video games are a simple hobby for wasting time or winding down after a hard days work(or going to classes). A bit of a reality check for you, no one in the real world gives a damn about your gaming skills. A bunch of pixels on a computer monitor does not represent a persons level of courage.
I play games to have fun. If you find fun in killing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... then you keep doing that, it's fucking boring as hell to me. You talk about courage... What branch are you in? That's courage. tyvm.
no... suicide bombers have courage. it's a rankless, thankless, payless, honorless job.
the line between courage and insanity is paper thin, and if you arent willing to walk it, i'd stick to games
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Risk vs. Reward is obsolete in the majority of the games out now. People are so spoiled these days they act like they are going to file a lawsuit against the gaming company if they lose items or don't like the changes that were implemented. Well I shouldn't say file a lawsuit, more like having a schizophrenic-paranoid-emo-breakdown-diaper accident.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
risk is definetly the key....and as for courage, risk also brings out courage or lack of it!! courage doesnt exist in mmo's anymore becuase it means nothing to die...you spawn and lose nothing......at the very least if your killer was able to loot your body for all your items...you would start to appreciate courage a little more in pvp
games seem to be designed around the idea of an extension of a single player game.
we hunt and kill animals for levels, spend hundreds of hours doing the same things we do in single player games.
we take the multiplayer aspect and throw it in as a side dish....
ok...
the definition of a single player game is that only one player in the game can interact with the environment.
the definition of an mmo is currently that multiple players interact with an environment
the definiton of a multiplayer game like counterstrike is players interact with players in and environment
i think the jump we need to make to define mmo, or possible create a new genre, is
player interact with players and in doing so create a a new environment.
it shouldnt always be that players buck against what designers have made, players should be able to do what humans do in real life.
e.g. animals usually adapt to their environments
humans adapt to their environments,and then immediately seek to change their environments to serve them ie society, cities, logging, fishing, farming etc...
players cooperate to create environment... thats one we havent yet seen in a combat setting...
games like second life kinda try,b ut they it's really just a virtual chat room, agian, games need to broaden to involve more than just creating environments, more than just chat, more than just combat.
thats the dream of the mmo right? a virtual society? one where we can do more than simply type to each other? ( internet's already been tapped )
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
and we r definetly not gonna see an adult rating on any mmo anytime soon to compensate for the slippery slope for the simple fact you dont see many 18 rated films anymore becuase it wont make as much money as a film open to both younger and older
Originally posted by GIRO risk is definetly the key....and as for courage, risk also brings out courage or lack of it!! courage doesnt exist in mmo's anymore becuase it means nothing to die...you spawn and lose nothing......at the very least if your killer was able to loot your body for all your items...you would start to appreciate courage a little more in pvp
excellent point...
the problem is we are trying to mix the reality and spontainaiety of life with the tedium and boredom of grinds.
the whole concept of grind is idiotic, that by repeating the same action 6000 thousand times will produce everything people need to exist.
if you do 6000 pushups, you dont have money, you dont have food etc...
agian, we come back to civilizations--- people cant do everything they need to survive, so they cooperate.
in current mmos, everyone doe sthe same thing, there is no real specialization, we are all combat
everyone is a soldier, thus theres nothing cool about bieng a soldier.
their is no repsonibility of any one class or guild to the defense of a nation etc... no real roles, we all end up being combat.
assasins should be able to sneak in and assasinate leaders, causing choas...
just way too near sighted.
anyone else not thankful for the "level' concept created by d&d?
about the perma death...
i've heard people talk about about an inheretance system where a residual amount of xp/money is passed to someone who can inherit it when you die, thus making previous accomplishments meaningful...
in a game where during the lifetime of one character, if you could only earn a limited amount of experience during life (just as all of us do) a residual ammount of knowledge or skill is passed onto the next generation.
thus death would become a meaningful and purposeful part of life as it is now.
inevitably, at some point your character would die of old age.
each new breed of person you control will have greater abilities than the last could attain.
thus someone who had leveled someone (unspecified xp system) 50 times and died at mid age every time would have the potential of xping a character with far more potential the 51st time than they could have the 1st run through.
this might actually serve players more, by giving htem new things to do.
essentially, you'd never reach 60, and future generations would simply add to your vast knowledge and abilities.
in games like wow where people make multiple characters, this is essentially the same idea, except that death now eliminates your character, making combat risky and giving motivation to make peace or be skilled, or pay taxes, or form strong allliances.
players are also never neccessarily wasting time when they level a new breed because it is giving their future generations and overall positive benefit.
in this way you eventually allow one character to be a master of many different proffessions, which allows players to consolidate all their efforts on essentially one entityy rather than buidling seperate characters that can only be used at seperate times.
for example you roll your first character and gain 500xp, gettin gyou to rank 2 with guns
you died, and have to restart, but the 500xp you earned during your first life allows you to reach a new maximum rank of 5. with guns
you level your character to rank 5 and are essentially deadlocked with the at ranking up with guns.
so you branch out, get to rank 4 with skinning, rank 4 with crafting, rank 4 with persuasion.
eventually getting killed will become necessary because you completely cap off all skills, and if you wish to reach greater ranks you'll have to die.
anyone see this as making sense?
imagine the joys of killing someone and having them never get up. watching their comrades hauling the body off to a grave site?
the player also gains greater capacity for greatness because of the xp earned during that lifetime.
- end of body camping, spawn camping, etc...
also, fundamentally changing how skill works... r ather than allowing you to do +400 dmg with axes, why not simply allow you to gain slight faster running and swinging speeds, the ability to carry longer and heavier weapons?
that way even a rank 1 character could kill everyone in pvp, but esentially would be far better had they been playing for a time and gained greater capacity for rank, and then accordingly level up to the rank again.?
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Originally posted by Chindow Seems one fact is missing mr wolf. No animal hunts just for the kill none excepte humans. The reason wolves pray on sheep is becasue they need them...say it with me .. They Are Food. The only analogy that fits this beast of a tale is maybe one of A abusive father beating his child. Good day
We are the movers and shakers of the world, forever.
Originally posted by GIRO and we r definetly not gonna see an adult rating on any mmo anytime soon to compensate for the slippery slope for the simple fact you dont see many 18 rated films anymore becuase it wont make as much money as a film open to both younger and older
good point...
query, does our content control on language and violence neccessitate the straightforwardness of these games?
the thing about america, and all countries a societies, is that the people in it create norms and then enforce them.
thus the rating system, thus the reason you cant swear in games.
if we are going to create a greeting place for people to create their own online society, we need to let people in the GAMES themselves make the content controls.
individual people in societies should work together to cultivate the kind of civilization and rules and laws they want.
instead, we get stuck accepting the rules an laws of our real world society instead of being able tomold and influence our own.
in the real world, you can lead a revolution and burn down the white house.
in a game world, if the developer says "ogrimmar must not be killed" you cannot kill orgrimmar.
real world laws are choking game societies because games written on predictable code make revolutions impossible, wher ein the real world they can actually happen.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Originally posted by jvh8990 Originally posted by Chindow Seems one fact is missing mr wolf. No animal hunts just for the kill none excepte humans. The reason wolves pray on sheep is becasue they need them...say it with me .. They Are Food. The only analogy that fits this beast of a tale is maybe one of A abusive father beating his child. Good day
excellent point.
if we allow players to choos their actions, some will, inevitably become murders and assasins.
if we allow enough diversity, people will form societies and create rules and laws to manage these people on our own.
it will then really be our job and the point of the game for some to exist only to defend the weak working as police men, while others will join the army and fight wars for conquest.
allow the display of human reactions and emotions. allow war and murder and hate to exist in the game----
rather than condoned pvp combat in acceptable areas.
there is no doubt griefers will exist, ti's just that instead of worrying about broken game mechanics that arent fun, players can immediately cooperate to handle them, put out warrants, again create police.
we may be instigating the death of hte forum, because players can simply cooperate in game to fix things rather than attempt to convice design teams to do what players want.
instead of trying to make games for players, try to make games that allow players to agian, make games.
one day, forums may simply be ways to ask game designers to give them more control to manipulate the world, rather than stop griefing or make one server pvp or pve instead.
if given the freedom to do so, humans will create government, create police, create things to do. all a game has to do is provide the vehicle for people to balance comradery, hate, love murder, progress etc...
that is enought to make a game with limitless replayability and spontanaiety.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
You make some good points too, if we had the control then their would indeed be griefers but it would be something that would be considered heavily and weighted against the gain. If for example the more some one griefs the bigger they can be punished. There would have to be mechanics in place to prevent people from doing this to just anyone. Imagine tho when some one griefs they get a marker of some sort, the more they grief then the higher their infamy rating goes, if ever caught by someone they could be either killed or maybe just knocked out and drug off to your towns own jail and thrown it. Their infamy level would slowly deteriorate down to 0 upon which time they are released. It would be actual game play time to make your infamy level decrease. Also since you were in prison you would lose any armor type clothing and weapons, if its a skill system then your skills would deteriorate at a rate congruent to your infamy dropping. I can see it.
There are games that have open PvP, an example is L2.Why be upset about games that don't have it.There has to be a happy medium in games for different types of game players.Go play the PK games where areas can be controlled by gold farmers and such.Theres a few ways I'd like to see open pvp handled ,such as when ganking a player your level and abilities drop to that persons abilities and if your avatar dies for initiating its permadeath for that avatar, or experience is taken away.If I pay 15.00 bucks a month ,its not to let some guy gank me.I like adventure,experiences,and to get into my avatar and play and relaxe,not let let joe gankboy kill me 15 times a day .....Boring.I don't even play WoW ,I didn't care for the pvp.I like games where when I'm ready for a little pvp action ,I go into the PvP zones ,like in CoH or DaoC.I guess the jist of it is in open pvp games the hi level guys rule and new or low level guys are fodder .
Comments
I would like to see MMORPG's have fair gameplay with regards to player kills, but on the other hand there really isn't a current system to allow fair gameplay. It is either rampant dominations by higher levels towards lower levels or control of the player kill system by the game developers. In short, I have yet to find a median that will be satisfying to both extremes.
I, personally, prefer the barbaric system of higher levels owning lower levels. Why? Because one day, you'll be stronger and in their shoes able to do the same. Right now, I am climbing those steps rapidly (I would say almost obsessively) so I can get out of the "noobish" state in a game called Silk Road Online (free, which is awsome). I don't like getting killed by extremly high level player, but I do realize that in an unfair world, fairness really doesn't exist. It is only fair to the person(s) who see it as fiar. Any others who disagree will undoubetly see it as totalitarian control.
OH MY GOD! Guild Wars gives xp for PVP! I just remembered. Its totally possible to max your levels pvp only. They just don't have a persistant world.
Like one guy said, Imagine you are hyped to play this game. The World is so beautiful, the enemy is truly evil, There are tons of fantasic loot to be had. Before you can get to any of this your forced to win 10,000 pvp battles. A PvPers perspective on the necesity of pve in current mmo's.
I think it's the objective of your past self to make you cringe.
if i was rich, and wanted you to work in my sweatshop, i'd put out the exact same propaganda for you to say.
in what way does this free anyone from having "responsibility"?
obey, and get paid a tiny portion of what your work was worth.
isnt that how you afford... food?
how long can you go without eating? thats how free you are.
there we go, you're free of corporate america for 1 week tops, then you die.
look how we've raped africa through imperialism... wait look how we've raped most of the world through imperialism.
remember ghandi? child labor? if we care so much about human rights, why do we set up factories in countries without a minimum wage?
ever heard of the blood diamond industry?
dont you find it a little ironic that so many little african slaves die so we can commemorate our marriages?
you said "in ancient egypt, the rich had to support everyone under them"
what... ahah did you just pull that out of your world civ book?
ancient egypt enslaved entire races, much like early america "did"
slaves are worth a hell of a lot of money, thus i'm sure it was in their best interest not to let them starve,yes?
you do make a valid point. Slaveholders in the early south often higher immigrants like the irish to do particularly dangerous jobs, because it was far cheaper to let an unskilled laborer die doing a job than a slave which could be bought and sold, so in a way, the slaves of this country were alot more lucky and safe than the "free people" we are asked to be thankful to be.
a slave holder would NEVER send a slave into combat. the value of a slave was hundreds of times the value of a "citizen".
every single soldier in our army would be immediately sent home if they were slaves.
"you are probably emo, however that is too much conjecture" but yet you say it anyway, because you lack a way to substancially disprove my argument.
why does the author's social stigma somehow credit or discredit his/her statements?
"it's clear you know nothing about economics"
right... and by saying that because ancient egypt fed their slaves they were saviors...
you truly represent a valid and knowledgeable intellectual.
how does this outlook somehow free someone from responsibility? the poor in the military arent freed. the vietnam drafts werent freed. the slaves werent freed.
if you stop working, you'll starve. you havent stopped being trapped, you simply know you're trapped.
obviously, this disturbs you, so you simply label my ideas as "apathy" and "emo" rather than confronting the thoughts themselves.
we are now dependents on the system, without the rich, we die, because corporate power has created for us the means to breed to the point where we have surpassed the carrying capacity, and now need corporate production just to say alive.
just think. the native americans who own this land we live on, they once had free reign to farm and live wherever they wanted.
now you cant just start farming, because a rich person owns the land.
if you quit at your job, you cant just "return to nature"
ownership of the land, and means of production belongs to the rich. this means that the only way tosurvive, is by compliance.
maybe we are better off not knowing that... but it's still reality.
if it's not, why dont you try disproving what i said, rather than stooping to adhominem and straw manning me.
we now depend on a large slave class to support ourselves, and of course, create a master class with which to guide us, and control the media.
if we stop now, it's true that everyone dies. It doesnt mean we can't change the system to serve the majority rather than the minority, but with enough people who believe calling something "emo" reasonably disqualifies it from being intelligible thought, it looks like that wont ever happen.
facts please, not doublespeak
is it really such a crime that i have a problem with you attempting to discredit ideas without actually at least mentioning the ideas themselves?
one thing has been clarified. this does not excuse us from doing anything. if you stop obeying, you will die, so can we assume that it is no longer a valid argument that this justifies laziness?
obviously, imminent death makes "doing nothing" a pretty bad idea for the poor doesnt it? thanks.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
I dont get it if you hate PvE and just want PvP then why not play something thats suited to you then? Dont play the PvE games, go and play FPS games , stuff like BF and PS etc.
I fail to see the problem.
Trouble is as stated already, ffa pvp means that the *big tough guys* kill anyone. Not just enemy but anyone. They PK because then can not because they have to.
Lowest pop servers on most MMOs? PvP ones. Wonder why eh?
If you watch a horror film to be horrifed does that mean when you take part in a game you want to play? Surely playing a game means playing with like minded people? Like you wouldnt go to a tennis court and whine about there being no football being played.
Perhaps if you require a virtual "big man" tag to make up for rl then you need to find another playing field.
or just go find some like minded people and throw darts between each others toes...its as much fun im sure.
games set up rules, an then let players have their way.
if a player chooses to do something, it's because the game prompts him, and then allows him to do so.
maybe games should work on creating the thrill of evading high level players, ie making game mechanics more fun?
all multiplayer games focus on the interaction of people with each other.
the definition of a good game then becomes what game allows people to interact in the most stimulating and interesting ways.
when games are marginalized to just combat, there really isnt much to do but kill each other pointlessly over and over for no reason.
i think your frustration comes from bland game design, not the players who simply follow the rules.
thats a pretty tight analogy, it's just like that. i think alot of people are being stuck in an arena that isnt really enjoyable, period.
i dont think it's that your against pvp, but the vehicle designed to allow you to seems meaninglessly flacid.
in a game where you kill animals 6000 billion times over and over, dying just becomes a hassle.
if survival isnt the goal, then death is just pure tedium, rather than excitement.
again, it's the fact that the developers ask you to enjoy killing "giant plain strider" 60 million times in a row.
i dunno... i'd rather be trying to sneak back to my base through a forest avoiding wildlife and enemy combatants, then be asked to kill"giant plains strider" 50 million times and get ganked while doing so.
it all comes back to, why the hell am i killing a giant plains strider 50 millon times! this game sucks.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
i think games could really go places by expanding their options.
why not allow players to appoint leadership, political leaders? build housing, destructable housing, create police forces, laws etc...
you could have 2 completely different societies with different rules and laws, built by players.
that would be interesting combat, and it emphasizes the ideas of "forming alliances" as wow says on the back of it's box.
why did humans form civilizations and alliances in the first place?
because they had common enemies in different races, cultures, and of course the environment.
you could see entire human histories lived out in games, revolutions etc...
i think it would make things like getting ganked more meaningful, it would make people bond as friends and guild for actual protection.
thats my view on the solution to the gayness of mmo's, and of course, the solution to consensual pvp.
pvp would now be meaninful, you'd have to first develop a real reason to kill someone before doing so, rather than simply chasing everyone with a name in red.
i think that most people agree that people have a reason before they go to war... thats what makes it exciting, defending your country, that romaticism that people so enjoy.
nobody identifies with orgirmmar, or the undercity, or with stormwind, because it cant be taken, and doesnt need to be defended.
imagine if individual players actualy loved their home cities and were dedicated to defending them, if they had homes inside the walls that would be captured or burned if invading armies breeched the wall?
for a good example, just check the lord of the rings movies? combat doesnt start because people simply like killing ( haha but it can ) thats what society is, a band of people dedicated to common goals and interests.
haah imagine a giant army of players gathering outside the walls of your town, firing trenchbuchets and breaking houses into peices, people hiding behind the walls of the castle trying to avoid being hit.
that would be so badass intense! the ominous loom of battle that could take everything you earned. people grabbing their items and fleeing out of town, while others nobly stay to defend.
allow players to create and make their own decisions on whether it best suits them to run and fight.
thats the range of human actions and emotions that mmos are missing.
allow players to create game experiences, create a game that allows them to do so, rather than one that gives them nothing to do but fight where the developer mandates them too.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
C
wow for example could simply create a pvp arena in a home city where fights and bets could be taken.
how cool would that be?
without allowing players to have some risk, things arent interesting.
wow and many mmo's systematically reduce themselves to having nothing to do, to having no objectives to complete because they force players to accept far too many controlling regulations that inevitably destroy the spontainaiety of human interaction.
When will i be able to run out into the woods, climb a tree to escape a tiger, build a tree fort, and seek poisons and treasure so i can become an assassin?
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
i dunno, the sandbox game industry imo is suffering because it fails to provide people with the means to do things in a sand box world....
it could be... i guess it's pretty well documented what with wow's success that people just need to follow one quest to the next...
maybe in 20 years when technology matches imagination games like these will be affordable to make?
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
C
Originally posted by achesoma
How many of these Grandma's Boy basement dweller posts do we need?
Every week someone creates a post about wanting a "challenge" and all MMOs are "carebear." Let me give you some free advise. You want a challenge? Go to graduate school, learn a foreign language, take banjo lessons, volunteer at a hospital, go outside, get fresh air...to name a few examples. Video games are a simple hobby for wasting time or winding down after a hard days work(or going to classes). A bit of a reality check for you, no one in the real world gives a damn about your gaming skills. A bunch of pixels on a computer monitor does not represent a persons level of courage.
I play games to have fun. If you find fun in killing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... then you keep doing that, it's fucking boring as hell to me.
You talk about courage... What branch are you in? That's courage. tyvm.
A Work in Progress.
Add Me
for example, surrendering your town and agreeing to pay taxes
if people are afraid of dying and losing their possessions, then you have to be crazily motivated in order to go to war.
again we need some risk
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
the line between courage and insanity is paper thin, and if you arent willing to walk it, i'd stick to games
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
we've taken mmo's the point of being intellectual property, which is really bad
we could end up with an mmo game that is as cordoned off as real life.
i suppose i should explain why...
take animal rights for example.
we slaughter animals in nazi camps to eat their flesh every day.
we still have animal police.
if someone kills your dog, you can sue them and have them sent to jail.
animals, like people, countries, etc.. only have rights if a human gains pleasure from it, identifies with it.
this is why we justify war, genocide, etc...
if someone loves their online character enough, we run the risk of being taken to jail in rl or be sued for it.
dont think so?
look how games ban accounts for using language? if you offend someone by swearing, you can get kicked off for months and have to pay for it.
can anyone say slipperly slope?
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
C
hm... another thought.
games seem to be designed around the idea of an extension of a single player game.
we hunt and kill animals for levels, spend hundreds of hours doing the same things we do in single player games.
we take the multiplayer aspect and throw it in as a side dish....
ok...
the definition of a single player game is that only one player in the game can interact with the environment.
the definition of an mmo is currently that multiple players interact with an environment
the definiton of a multiplayer game like counterstrike is players interact with players in and environment
i think the jump we need to make to define mmo, or possible create a new genre, is
player interact with players and in doing so create a a new environment.
it shouldnt always be that players buck against what designers have made, players should be able to do what humans do in real life.
e.g. animals usually adapt to their environments
humans adapt to their environments,and then immediately seek to change their environments to serve them ie society, cities, logging, fishing, farming etc...
players cooperate to create environment... thats one we havent yet seen in a combat setting...
games like second life kinda try,b ut they it's really just a virtual chat room, agian, games need to broaden to involve more than just creating environments, more than just chat, more than just combat.
thats the dream of the mmo right? a virtual society? one where we can do more than simply type to each other? ( internet's already been tapped )
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
C
the problem is we are trying to mix the reality and spontainaiety of life with the tedium and boredom of grinds.
the whole concept of grind is idiotic, that by repeating the same action 6000 thousand times will produce everything people need to exist.
if you do 6000 pushups, you dont have money, you dont have food etc...
agian, we come back to civilizations--- people cant do everything they need to survive, so they cooperate.
in current mmos, everyone doe sthe same thing, there is no real specialization, we are all combat
everyone is a soldier, thus theres nothing cool about bieng a soldier.
their is no repsonibility of any one class or guild to the defense of a nation etc... no real roles, we all end up being combat.
assasins should be able to sneak in and assasinate leaders, causing choas...
just way too near sighted.
anyone else not thankful for the "level' concept created by d&d?
about the perma death...
i've heard people talk about about an inheretance system where a residual amount of xp/money is passed to someone who can inherit it when you die, thus making previous accomplishments meaningful...
in a game where during the lifetime of one character, if you could only earn a limited amount of experience during life (just as all of us do) a residual ammount of knowledge or skill is passed onto the next generation.
thus death would become a meaningful and purposeful part of life as it is now.
inevitably, at some point your character would die of old age.
each new breed of person you control will have greater abilities than the last could attain.
thus someone who had leveled someone (unspecified xp system) 50 times and died at mid age every time would have the potential of xping a character with far more potential the 51st time than they could have the 1st run through.
this might actually serve players more, by giving htem new things to do.
essentially, you'd never reach 60, and future generations would simply add to your vast knowledge and abilities.
in games like wow where people make multiple characters, this is essentially the same idea, except that death now eliminates your character, making combat risky and giving motivation to make peace or be skilled, or pay taxes, or form strong allliances.
players are also never neccessarily wasting time when they level a new breed because it is giving their future generations and overall positive benefit.
in this way you eventually allow one character to be a master of many different proffessions, which allows players to consolidate all their efforts on essentially one entityy rather than buidling seperate characters that can only be used at seperate times.
for example you roll your first character and gain 500xp, gettin gyou to rank 2 with guns
you died, and have to restart, but the 500xp you earned during your first life allows you to reach a new maximum rank of 5. with guns
you level your character to rank 5 and are essentially deadlocked with the at ranking up with guns.
so you branch out, get to rank 4 with skinning, rank 4 with crafting, rank 4 with persuasion.
eventually getting killed will become necessary because you completely cap off all skills, and if you wish to reach greater ranks you'll have to die.
anyone see this as making sense?
imagine the joys of killing someone and having them never get up. watching their comrades hauling the body off to a grave site?
the player also gains greater capacity for greatness because of the xp earned during that lifetime.
- end of body camping, spawn camping, etc...
also, fundamentally changing how skill works... r ather than allowing you to do +400 dmg with axes, why not simply allow you to gain slight faster running and swinging speeds, the ability to carry longer and heavier weapons?
that way even a rank 1 character could kill everyone in pvp, but esentially would be far better had they been playing for a time and gained greater capacity for rank, and then accordingly level up to the rank again.?
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
We are the movers and shakers of the world, forever.
query, does our content control on language and violence neccessitate the straightforwardness of these games?
the thing about america, and all countries a societies, is that the people in it create norms and then enforce them.
thus the rating system, thus the reason you cant swear in games.
if we are going to create a greeting place for people to create their own online society, we need to let people in the GAMES themselves make the content controls.
individual people in societies should work together to cultivate the kind of civilization and rules and laws they want.
instead, we get stuck accepting the rules an laws of our real world society instead of being able tomold and influence our own.
in the real world, you can lead a revolution and burn down the white house.
in a game world, if the developer says "ogrimmar must not be killed" you cannot kill orgrimmar.
real world laws are choking game societies because games written on predictable code make revolutions impossible, wher ein the real world they can actually happen.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
excellent point.
if we allow players to choos their actions, some will, inevitably become murders and assasins.
if we allow enough diversity, people will form societies and create rules and laws to manage these people on our own.
it will then really be our job and the point of the game for some to exist only to defend the weak working as police men, while others will join the army and fight wars for conquest.
allow the display of human reactions and emotions. allow war and murder and hate to exist in the game----
rather than condoned pvp combat in acceptable areas.
there is no doubt griefers will exist, ti's just that instead of worrying about broken game mechanics that arent fun, players can immediately cooperate to handle them, put out warrants, again create police.
we may be instigating the death of hte forum, because players can simply cooperate in game to fix things rather than attempt to convice design teams to do what players want.
instead of trying to make games for players, try to make games that allow players to agian, make games.
one day, forums may simply be ways to ask game designers to give them more control to manipulate the world, rather than stop griefing or make one server pvp or pve instead.
if given the freedom to do so, humans will create government, create police, create things to do. all a game has to do is provide the vehicle for people to balance comradery, hate, love murder, progress etc...
that is enought to make a game with limitless replayability and spontanaiety.
--people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--
You make some good points too, if we had the control then their would indeed be griefers but it would be something that would be considered heavily and weighted against the gain. If for example the more some one griefs the bigger they can be punished. There would have to be mechanics in place to prevent people from doing this to just anyone. Imagine tho when some one griefs they get a marker of some sort, the more they grief then the higher their infamy rating goes, if ever caught by someone they could be either killed or maybe just knocked out and drug off to your towns own jail and thrown it. Their infamy level would slowly deteriorate down to 0 upon which time they are released. It would be actual game play time to make your infamy level decrease. Also since you were in prison you would lose any armor type clothing and weapons, if its a skill system then your skills would deteriorate at a rate congruent to your infamy dropping. I can see it.
If you keep picking at it ,it won't heal.