Premise 1: Players consume or advance through static precreated game content at an average rate of more than 10 times that which it takes to create it. This means that in order to sustain the fun level of a mmorpg just based on single player type static content you would need more than 10x the man hours than it took to make the game to begin with. I do not believe this is cost effective, and obviously neither do mmorpg developers as is evidence by their attempted use of tricks to extend game content.
This Premise cannot apply to mmorpgs, you have drawn from a figure (the accuracy of this figure is questionable as well) which only relates to the rate players consume content in a single player game. This does not accurately define the rate players will get bored of an mmorpg, as there are other factors. Here are four examples:
Exploration: Although this may seem as though it is limited by content, it can also include things like meeting new interesting people.
Achievement: This is the main focus of your premise, as there is only so much one can achieve, and only so much equipment they can collect. If this is your ONLY source of enjoyment from an mmorpg then you will get bored of the game eventually.
Socialisation: This is one of the areas that people will never get bored of. Chat rooms have been around for as long as the internet has been around.
Competition: This does not neccesarily mean PVP, although if competition is your main focus then you will enjoy a PVP game more than a non PVP game most likely.
This is not a complete list, as there are other factors.
The mere fact that there are many mmorpgs that are still full of players, long after the time it took for the game to be developped has passed, directly contradicts this premise. Yes, the players may have consumed all the available content, but the game has obviously not ceased to be fun.
Premise 2: Tricks used to slow down players from consuming what content there is or to stretch the content artificially lessen fun to the degree which they are used. Setting a player back randomly is stressful to the player. this stress can be averted by to the degree that the player expected to be setback for the particular action he was taking. However most of the time the player will avoid situation where he would be setback. But IF there is a possibility of rewards that are worth the risk he will take the action anyways. this is gambling.
This premise is accurate, however it is looking at it only from your point of view. It would seem that your primary goal is to achieve the most, however if you have a different goal, then these "tricks" (If I could get a definition of what you mean by tricks, that would be appreciated) may not cause much, or any, stress. It all depends on your style of play.
Premise 3: Gambling can slow a person's progress overall without reducing the amount of fun, because at each gamble there can be a chance of large gains for the player to look forward to, there is no extreme stress for the setback because the player expected this possibility, and overall the player still moves at a slower pace.
Only the first sentence of this premise is true, because it uses the word 'can' as in, that is one possibility. This of course requires the person to actually enjoy gambling.
Also there always can be some stress involved in the loss of equipment/levels, whether the event was fair or not.
Premise 4: Gambling where ones skills and knowledge is involved is more fun than pure luck gambling.
This may, or may not be true, it depends on the situation. It requires that the person enjoys gambling, which may not be true at all.
Premise 5: The only entity to date in video games unpredictable enough so that the player will not just assume he can beat it (and therefore dieing to it would be random punsihment) or that he has no chance against it (so he will just avoid it), and can retain this unpredictability through a near infinite amount of interactions, is another player. Also the nature of the pvp can not be to limit the players choice of action to the point where PVP becomes predictable.
If I am understanding this correctly, you are stating that you will ALWAYS know if you are going to win against a computer controlled opponent, whereas you may not know this vs another human opponent. While he latter is most certainly true, the former is not. If you are fighting a computer controlled opponent which is of similar strength to your character, you may not know if you are going to win or not. There are many random variables that affect the outcome of the battle in most mmorpgs.
Premise 6: The more the person has a chance of gaining the more fun it is to participate in the gamble, but he must be randomly reinforced by winning sometimes.
Again this is not always true. It depends on the situation. I know of people who would feel bad if they had directly caused someone else any trouble, as much so as if they had been caused the same amount of trouble themsleves. So either way for them a PVP interaction, on any mmorpg for this person would be a bad experience.
Premise 7: Since gambling can slow a persons content consumption to any degree without reducing the fun or causing stress signifigantly, it can slow consuption of the games content to the point where Developers could supply more at the rate it is used.
Conclusion: The only possible way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun in an MMORPG is to have a PVP Based MMORPG where players take gambles by choice on their battles between each other.
It seems to me that most of these premises assume that all users draw enjoyment from mmorpgs in the same way. Which is a flawed view in and of itself. Your argument is that pvp is REQUIRED to sustain enjoyment in an mmorpg. But as I said earlier, if you draw your enjoyment from other parts of the game, you will not enjoy a pvp based mmorpg at all. Also you might be able to sustain enjoyment from other sources, such as socialisation (just one example). You really should look at ALL possibilities before drawing a conclusion like this.
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
Kriminal- Let's just assume all your premises and arguments are correct (which 90% aren't) but lets just pretend for a minute they are. How would you go about explaining ALL the succesful MMOs that are not PvP based. I haven't seen a true PvP game since Meridian 59 or UO. Now its either RvR (Realm vs. Realm) or Guild or Area based. An more recently, in games such as Horizons, PvP is not an option at all. If your arguement is so sound, why have the game developers strayed from PvP? And you cannot use the arguement that people have just had bad experiences because 90% of the MMORPG market has gone in the direction of consensual PvP or no PvP at all. As for not proving you wrong you admitted to it, after I made my post you responded:
First of all if any of my premises were not true you wouldnt be making unbacked claims to the matter you would be trying to point out how. As I have said many times simply claiming the fact means nothing more than that you want to disprove my premises.
This argument says nothing about the success of mmorpgs. Its talking about continual fun. Until a continually fun rpg comes out the ones closest to that will be succesful...
Ok.. there are pvp based mmorpgs to come out since "uo" and "meridian 59"... Neocron for one that is purely pvp. Second, due to the amount of time it takes to develop a mmorpg, the time span you are considering "recent" when you claim "recent games don't have pvp as an option" is completely irrelevant. Lastly, for your final argument you are either doing one of two things:
1. You are basically putting MMORPG developers on some godly all-knowing pedestal when it comes to deciding the right direction for mmorpgs to g. If you were create a forum just for mmorpg devs, it would probably look a heck of alot like this forum does. As you can see just by browsing their websites each developer has drastically different ideas about what a mmorpg "should" be like.
2. You are saying that since so many people disagree with me I must be wrong. However since people can be wrong this argument is useless.
Lastly I didn't admit to being wrong about anything to you... That statement you quoted was in regard to the fact that you quoted an argument that had nothing to do with the main argument and addressed someones meaningless claim "I don't like any form of pvp therefore no form of pvp can be fun to me"
The point is Its really annoying that I am repeatedly having to respond to arguments which have nothing to do with the argument the thread is based on.
Originally posted by SciMo kriminal, did you like pre-trammel UO? is that the model that you're working with when you say that a mmorpg has to be pvp-based to be continually fun? now i know you've stretched your definition of pvp to mean pvp AND pve AND whatever, but i'll just concentrate on what most people understand pvp as. ie 2 players engaged in a direct zero-sum game, wherein for one player to win, the other has to lose. if it is, then the problem i see there is that pre-trammel UO, what you essentially had was a bunch of game styles thrown together at the same time. crafting, exploring, fighting monsters, etc. what unrestricted pvp does, is forces you to change from your game style, to a pvp game style. no other game style does this. if i craft some swords, how does that impinge on your pvp game? now, a lot of pvp proponents say you must have competition for fun, look at sports, other games, etc. and i'll agree with that, that's true. but if i'm playing CS, then i know what to expect, and then win or lose, well that's just part of the game. if i play baseball, i come to the field ready to play. but i'd be pretty pissed if i'm at home plate, and some linebacker comes out of nowhere and tackles me. basically kriminal, you've thrown a lot of vague and long-winded arguments about pvp and fun based on psychology and "FACTS". since you want to develop mmorpgs someday, please post an example of how you would implement PVP that would be continually fun, so that we can all understand what it is you're trying to enlighten us with.
Your first assumption is not off at all I suppose, as in order to retain their unpredictability in a pvp match an enemy has to be able to win sometimes so someone must also lose. But no I never played UO pre-trammel, I played it a little bit like soon after blackthornes revenge was released and never really got into it.
So you say you recognize that competition is nessecary to keep things fun. Do you also recognize that this argument says nothing about what type of game is being played? That means its basically just using pvp to mean competition.
Next you are saying that you don't like to forced into competition that you don't expect and then lose. This is also in the argument...
And to your final request, the answer is no. This argument is dealing with pure ideas. Specific examples are not needed to deal with pure ideas if you use logical thinking skills. I have many ideas about what contributes to making pvp better or worse but they are for a different discussion. I will not give ammunition for people to get this thread any more off topic than it already does from the arguments people try to make against it.
Originally posted by hercules Strangely I decided to try the PvP server on DAoC euro last night and had such a laugh. Made a char and immediately got killed right at the trainer haha.Came back and nuked the guy then got killed ,came back nuked other guy ,then some merc came and killed me . Logged with a laugh.Total playtime -20 mins.Will I actually come nd make a char and level and build up the char on this server?Certainly not,I have planetside to gank on people when i want and UT2003. FPS ganking is fun,MMOPRG ganking is dull.Might explain why the server is only 500 people at peak times as against the other euro servers that are 2500.Guess I am not alone in my views.
I assume that by posting this here you believe that it has some relevance to this discussion. If so you must be really good at blocking out what people respond to you with and repeatedly posting the same thing over and over. Random player ganking = unexpected pvp which my argument eliminates. Not to mention a host of other things that daoc has that eliminates it from the argument.
The simple fact that you would even try this should make it blatantly obvious why your and probably many other peoples raw opinion about the argument is quite meaningless. You continue to project one or two bad experiences on to all forms of pvp yet still make the conveniant exception for pve which is the same thing except you don't lose...
Originally posted by Gaiawyn In your topic statement "Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based - simplified" starts off on a bad note. Rather than the topic being a statement of fact, it is very much one of your own opinion. "Continually fun" - What is continually fun for you, may not be fun for someone else. Fun is a feeling of emotion and state of being which can only be measured by the individual experiencing the feeling of fun for themselves. To be fun an MMORPG must be PVP based is a crock. Again, that is subject to the individual playing the game. I haven't played Sims Online to know if there is any PvP involved, but it appears to be a game that is immersive in the social aspects rather than "killing your neighbor". There are people playing it to have "fun". Fun is not a constant. To suggest that PvP would make it so is ridiculous. Not everyone finds fun in being the "hunter" or the "hunted". MMORPGs that are diverse enough in content to please a variety of play styles is what makes gaming fun. Your premises, in a nutshell, have no factual support of your topic statement. Furthermore, "simplified" it was not. Just as a suggestion - It's better to express yourself in a level where the majority of people can understand you. When you know that society as a whole has an average reading level of a 6th grader, it might be a good idea to keep it "simplified". You could spruce it up later for your own purpose, whether it be for school or some psychological work that you're trying to accomplish. If you're doing this for college credit, I would recommend that you state such in your post. You may have found that people would have been less "defensive" toward what you were attempting to accomplish with this post. So, to what result do people feel that PVP must be involved for an MMORPG to be "fun"? Let's find out, shall we?
This argument is regarding a completely factual situation. The statement "In order to be continually fun a mmorpg must be pvp based" is either right or it is wrong. If you claim it is right then it is right. If you claim it is not right then you must therefore claim it is wrong. Either way it has nothing to do with opinion.
The sims online is a purely social game. I don't include social aspect in my argument because A) any game can have a social aspect and in games in which the social aspect is the only fun, you will find that people will give up playing the game to as much degree is nessecary in order to simply hang out in large groups just to socialize. This to me says that this game is not really fun at all as a video game.
I hypothesized in the sims this meant that people would just stand around each other not playing the game or they would have some way to train their character a bit while doing this that didn't impair their abillity to socialize in large groups. Since then I checked into it and I was right. People in that game make large gyms, large art training areas etc etc so they can all hang out in the same place and talk.
Next. Im not talking about what is continually fun for "me" This is something that people arguing with me seriously need to get over. I am talking about what is fun for everyone by virtue of them being a human being. I am talking about the very basic feelings which are common to all people. Realize that if these feelings were not the same for different people then they would not be named in such a way to reflect the situation that causes them because this would be ineffective in communicating them between different people. In fact communication of feelings at all in such a case would be very difficult. Stop and think about what you are saying for 2 seconds and you will realize it is rediculous.
The only reason people are making this rediculous argument here is because people hold a second definition for fun in their minds that is "what people say when you ask them if they are having fun" while what I am referring to when I say fun as experience of any emotion a person might like.
Apparently you don't like psychology. Argue with this before you start claiming the entire field is useless. You must realize that if all people were right simply because they "felt" like they were, then people would never disagree because they would only think they were right when they actually were. Therefore people must not always be right regarding same things. From this we must conclude that either people either claim to be right when they don't even feel like they are (happens but not often) or that people can be wrong even when they feel like they are right.
The point here is two fold. Psychology is just common experience melded with common sense or logic. Second, You and many other people keep spouting "fun is just an opinion" as if this statement was a self explaining truth. It isn't. Its just a statement someone said to you at one time, and since it doesn't contradict anything your limited knowledge base of people contains your unconsious gives it the go ahead and you feel like your right when you say it. Unfortunately just because you feel like you are right doesn't make you so to other people. Without any explanation (of which there is probably none) to the statement "fun is just an opinon" repeated assertion by you and others of it is meaningless.
My premises nessecitate the conclusion as far as I can see. Point out your idea of a counterexample so we can clear this misunderstanding otherwise.
You are really immature. Grow up. If you need to stomp your feet or grunt or whatever before posting, there really isn't any need to run around spouting insults at people because it makes you mad someone had an idea you didn't think of. Why do you say people read at the 6th grade level by the way? There really isn't a simplest form that would allow everyone to understand what the argument is saying. People all have slightly different definitions of words and therefore communication is difficult no matter what. That does not make people that don't understand what I am saying "readers at the 6th grade level". I really couldn't care less that immature people like you come into threads like this and get all defensive over the fact that someone had an idea that they didn't. Obviously I have quite a lot of experience dealing with this type of attitude. I don't styme my ideas to make them easier to swallow.
Oh thats real meaningful.. a poll... To bad you weren't here earlier when someone else tried this or for the mock rendition thread... A) Without looking at the poll, the number of people who agree or disagree does not effect weather the ideas are right or wrong. Such a poll doesn't even reflect the opinion of the general populace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Let Explain... No... to much to explain.. let me sum up.
Princes marry Humperdink in little less than half an hour.
Ok no really.. here is the basis of what all this means.
1- People find fun.. in what stimulates thier minds...
2- Many people think different chicks are HOT... and ALL the chicks are HOT .. but not to the same people.
3- Fun is not a STATIC Physical act or duty. I can find fun in killing my neighbor, just as someone else can find fun in picking flowers. And these may OR may not be influenced by society or inate genetic mentality.
4- Therefore FUN.. is never just one thing. Just like.. if everyone liked the same thing.. the world would all be the SAME.
You can Logically try to EXPLAIN Fun any way you want.. it doens't reflect on the REAL world.
Like.. try to explain how Salt tastes.. without using the word "salty".
Just doens't work.. the problem with psycology .. is that it doens't work on everyone. Cause everyone has a different way of thinking. Crazy people. People with chemecil imbalances, and certain things will acuse them to THINK completly different. And yes you can say.
The only PROVABLE ACCURATE FACT that can be stated is this.
"Fun to someone is what ever it is they think is fun"
Why do most of you guys feel that your way is the only way? And it is mostly the PvP crowd who feel this way.
Actually thats not true, no matter how pvp based a game is and no matter how big of an interacting pvp population the unexperienced players always initially demand that the game be changed because they were killed unexpectedly.
And the reason why seperation like trammel and felluca in UO doesn't work is this. Even the people who love pvp, for their own benefit must go and farm items on trammel where they are safer. They know that in the grand scheme of things this ruins the game but that if they don't they will be disadvantaged because their enemies will.
Originally posted by MrVice This whole link is based on an argement some DIPSHIT made that says PVP is nessary to have fun in an mmorpg. Which I don't think is true. Hell I've PVPed a hell of a lot in my time and kill or be killed I had a good time, but thats not the point. Don't get you panties in a bunch because some people don't like getting ganked or competing with other people.
I have a friend who will only play the computer in Warcraft Three, does that mean he shouldn't play Warcraft Three. NO!!!! He just doesn't like getting beat by me all the time, so we both have a good time by just playing the comp.
lol... Oh im a dipshit now huh? Don't you feel even the smallest bit silly for constantly flinging insults in response to simple logic then posting things which agree 100% with the argument in question? Your arguments make it clear and simple that your feelings are based on flawed reasoning, yet you continue to act on them.
If your friend always looses warcraft 3 then he has a very small chance to win and therefore does not want to play. Did you think this went against the argument some how? It says clearly that the person must choose to participate in the pvp and also that the person wont do that unless he feels he has a chance to win...
Roleplaying has nothing to do with pvp and is the subject for a whole other argument.
Originally posted by heartless I gave up on this topic a long time ago. This guy, Kriminal99 or whatever, refuses to believe that his logic is flawed, no matter what you post. He refuses to acknowledge that carebear MMORPGs are much more popular, something that debunks his logic before he even gets into his premises. He refuses to acknowledge that different people find different things fun. He refuses to acknowledge that his whole logic is based on his personal opinion and therefore might not be logical to other people. He makes wild claims about MMORPG content getting used up 10 time faster than the developers can make it. It's a pointless argument because as he himself stated "such PvP system doesn't exist." So if it doesn't exist, posting about it is pointless, since the best argument he can bring forth is hypothetical at best.
Thats not true heartless. If someone were to post something here that actually made sense and contradicted the argument I would be happy. Most people are just basically saying that they don't "like" the argument. If I was to argue with you forever or people were to go think about it themselves every opinion on here would either be refined into something that made sense or the people would realize they were wrong.
Instead you have people basically posting their raw feelings which by virtue of the fact that people can disagree, does not indicate that the argument is right or wrong. Only one or two people have even bothered to refine their raw opinion up to this point into something that even makes sense - and then looking at the refined idea we have seen that they were wrong and it was really just a misunderstanding that they disagreed with me to begin with.
No the popularity of carebear mmorpgs does not debunk my logic. If I am right this would still be the case until a pvp game which goes along with the argument is made. No this has nothing to do with opinion, and by the way people keep saying that as a self explaining truth which it definitely is not. Its just something you heard once that goes along with what little you know about people so far so you "feel" like it makes sense. If it really made sense you would be able to either break it down into things that people can not deny or noone would disagree with it.
The 10x thing most people agree with because its right. This is raw content btw, that is before it is stretched out into 50-200 levels in order to make it last longer.
Yes such a pvp game does not yet exist. So what if its hypothetical. All game designs are hypothetical before they are made... oO
Originally posted by XanderZane OMG this thread is hilarious. One poster trying to prove "logically" that every MMORPG game should have PVP. Please give it a rest!! Not EVERY MMO game needs to have PvP for it to be successful. Has anyone played ToonTown or The Sims? I'm having a blast playing FFXI and at the moment it doesn't have PvP. So, over 500,000 subscribers who are playing this game and having "logical" fun need to experience PvP? LMAO!! I don't think so!! Having PvP in a MMO game should NOT be mandatory. It should be optional. Developers know that many people like the experience of PvP and many don't. So you have 3 choices when developing a MMO game. Either make the game completely PvP like Shadowbane or Planetside, make it optional PvP like FFXI and WoW will eventually be or make a game with absolutely NO PvP in it like The Sims. It has nothing to do with logic, it's all about choice. Yes, people can be force to like something through hypnosis or drugs, but who the hell is going to do the forcing? The person who started this thread? Ok. time to close the thread now.
Xander
Ok let me just try something new from here on out. I have figured out that every opinion can be formed into much simpler wording that can be easily considered. Since people keep trying to use the length of my responses against me I will try and simplify peoples arguments and point out why they are wrong or don't make sense (if that is the case that is) I will take even the smallest metaphor or implication of statements as an argument.
Arguments:
1. PVP is not needed to be succesful, non pvp games exist that are succesful.
Answer: The argument doesn't say to be succesful it says to be continually fun. Continually (without break) fun games wont be the most succesful until they exist.
2. I am one of few arguing against many people. (Common throughout the thread)
Answer: This ones HAS to be a bit long unfortunately. Everyone has the feeling that this statement has meaning because of a complicated argument that they don't yet even understand consiously. Let me sum it up, tell me if you think I am wrong:
If a person can believe something is true, yet it is not, then how can we really know anything? 2+2 might really be 5 for all we know if clearly seeing something to be true doesn't mean that it is. But how can 2+2=5? - the definition of 2,4 + and = all necessitate that 2+2=4. In fact any time where the argument in question contains few enough factors that we can even think about it consiously, we can see that the definition of the words involved necessitate the conclusion when something "seems" right. But how then can we ever disagree about something? Either because we aren't talking about the same thing, or because the person is lying about being able to see something clearly in order to protect their feelings (happens occasionally)
To the people repeatedly spouting it, the statement "fun is just a matter of opinion" probably makes sense without any further explanation. Thats because their current definition of fun is basically what someone says when you ask them if they are having fun. They might say anything, probably depending more on how they want to look to other people than what they are actually feeling. Whereas the definition this argument is using, which I have pointed out many times is fun as in the "feelings which people describe as fun" Then even when this is pointed out people still don't say "oh I see what you are saying" because their feeling of self worth would be hurt if they admitted they were (even in just a sense) wrong. They just lose their will to argue instead, at least until they can think of a new argument or someone else has a new argument that they can rally behind.
If you are then to ask, "If both people are really right considering only the definitions of the concerned words that they themselves hold, then how can you say that you are right outside this?", the answer is because I made the original argument and they are trying to contradict it, basically without really even knowing what it says.
And if one person can disagree with someone and be wrong, then many people can and it doesn't matter how many people disagree with me the argument is still just as likely to be right.
So as you can see the fact that many people disagree with one person is no indication that the person's argument is wrong.
3. Argument: Fun has nothing to do with logic.
Answer: This statement is made as if logic means to sit around and think about something. Sitting around and thinking about things to some people is not fun (and almost always isn't fun to the people with the person doing the thinking) therefore you think this statement has meaning. (or you know it does not but you think it will make you sound like you know something) Back in reality logic simply means to use the definitions of things and experiences given to extract more information than what is plainly visible. Determining what is fun can easily be done with logic. Everything that people know period is determined with logic. Claiming anything can not be determined with logic is a fool's assertion...
My argument has nothing to do with forcing people to like anything. If I am correct then people WOULD like the game the argument proposes to make, even if they do not recognize it by looking at this argument. People do not always know ahead of time what is going to be fun for them... (as in the feelings they will feel)
Just because you don't like that someone thought of something you didn't doesn't mean they should be silenced...
Originally posted by MrVice
Ok you wanted me to tear appart your damn post here is goes. Actually I didn't want to waste my time writing this all down, but now you've gone and pissed me off. Lets start with your condition satement shall we. "To be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP." Continually fun... There is no such thing nothing is forever fun. You need to use more spefic word choices. In what way is it fun? FUN for me fun for you, because websters dictionary has the word fun as a subjective term. Meaning it verries from person to person. Also your deffination of PVP is lacking. Player vs Player hell one could successfuly argue that everquest is pvp. However most people who play mmorpgs wouldn't nessarly classify it as a player vs player mmorpg. This whole condition statement needs work.
Where is your evidence for this. I don't see any articals or journals to prove your point. THis is a figure you pulled out of your ass. It makes this part of your argument invalid. This is an opinion, not a logical arguement. Also I would like you to give 10 examples of "tricks" that mmorpgs use. Your wording here is to vague and you need to give better examples. Oh and by disproving premisis one your whole argument is bunk. But lets cont. shall we. Again we are using non percise words like "tricks", "Content", and "Lessen fun". You need to loose these terms, and what the hell is "lessen fun to the degree they are used to." I mean ok besides it being increddably vague, it verries from person to person. I mean honestly, some people find the grind, which is the only thing I can assume your talking about to be quite fun. I personaly think they're massochrists but hell thats their thing. I can agree with most of this part of the statement, other than you should remove the "by to the degree" it threw me off for half a minute and doesn't help your arguement any. Also gambling is not certain, some people don't enjoy gambeling of anykind, and are concent taking down easy mobs and stress free quests for their entire character existance. You should change this statement so it refects most people and not all people. P4 This is an opinion. You need to remove this statement entierly. If you want me to prove you wrong, then just look at any casino. See the people lined up at the slots. In most cases you'll find more people there than you will at any games that require a degree of skill. Besides as we already discussed fun is a subjective term lets stop using it entirely. Premise 5: In theroy this makes sense, however it doesn't take into effect other stimuli that come into effect in mmorpgs. Forinstance, players tend to avoid combat with characters that are higher level than they are. Players also tend to avoid player vs player combat if the pentaly for death is to high, or the reward is to low. Players tend to avoid combat if the other player in question is tweeked to hell. Forinstance you would probabley be more afraid of a person wearing bad ass end game armour and a glowing sword then a person wearing regualr eq. Finaly your argument doesn't take into consideration balencing issues that that devs might me perpously putting into the game to keep all classes ballenced. (An example of this is the upcomming world of warcraft. Which is implementing a rock, paper, scissors structor for combat. So A warrior will always beat a hunter who will always beat a wizard, who will always beat a warrior. Assuming equil level an baring outside interferance.) "Also the nature of the pvp can not be to limit the players choice of action to the point where PVP becomes predictable." This statement seems to be refearing to a perticular type of player vs player. I need you to be more percise. Please explain what type of player vs player are you refearing to here. If you need to give an example from existing game. "Premise 6: I agree with your premise here, but you really need to work on your wording here. Also this seems like kind of a duh statement. The person should win that gambel is kinda unnessary. I mean if he wouldn't randomly win from time to time it wouldn't be much of a gambel would it. "Premise 7: This statement is a red hearing. Nothing in your previous statements lead up to this point. It's just kinda out there. Secondly it doesn't even make sense. The problem is the words "to any degree" which basicly imply that if you have gambeling you can slow down player concuption to a crawl or almost entirely. Well I got news for you, you make the grind to hard and people won't be willing to play it. Thats a fact. Also you really need to clerify the word concuption. Are we talking ecodemy here, quests, points of social interaction, what are we talking about. "Conclusion: The only possible way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun in an MMORPG is to have a PVP Based MMORPG where players take gambles by choice on their battles between each other." Ok first of all your statement never goes about proving that this is a cost effective model. Secondly what the hell "sustained level of fun" excusse me, but I've never done anything that fun forever! Once again we have the words PVP baised and again I emplore you, what kinda of player vs player interaction are we talking about. In case you haven't figured it out yet, the reason everybody is getting down on your argument is that your are not being able to convay your ideas to them. Well actually thats a true statement, that is if you know anything about landscaping. But the problem is the people I'm trying to communcate with don't understand what hell I'm talking about. Because what I said was to generic. Now lets try this statement: A ring of privacey trees around your yard can help keep it private. Well people begin to understand what I'm talking about, but still they don't seem to get the whole picture. I see the term trees is to general. Well how about this. Planting Spruce trees around the back yards permiter helps keep your neighbors from watching you. Which gives you a sense of privacy. See in this statement people know what tree I'm talking about, where I want them placed, and to whom I'm refearing to when I say privacey. I could get even more specific yet, but I'm getting tired. In addition you need to realize that we are talking about mmorpgs. Do you understand what that acronym stands for. In case you don't I'm going to expalin it to you. It means Massive Multiplayer Online, here's the key right here. Role Playing Game. Yeah thats right. See you tend to think that all people find their satisfaction from creating this player model and acheiving gloary for it. See you are the type of person thats known as the achiever, one who constantly seeks gradification from the game, by improving their charcter. A person like you seeks to be the best at all times, which is why player vs player might seem to be appealing. But for someone like me, that isn't the case. I'm a socailizer. Oh yeah thats right. See I'm that guy who plays on those Role Playing Servers. The guy who makes a character and tries to act like that chracter. I made a palaidn and didn't gain a lvl for 9 days in Everquest. Because I was so busy attempting to convert dark elves to the light side. I mean yeah it's stupid and meta game wouldn't let me do it. But hell I had fun. More fun then I ever had killing a character. In RPGS you are expected to play are role, not get your toon it's next glowie which will proc at lvl 50... *Sigh* Ok I'm done ranting now... Listen I had more to say and when I read this post later I'm going to be mad that I didn't, but screw it I'm tired. I'll adress you being a dumb ass for discounting peoples experances later. Untill then serriosly listen to what I have to say, you might find it informative. Mr Vice PS: The four types of MMORPGers are: Socailizers Acheivers Explorers and Killers Just a little FYI
ROFL... I almost missed this post.. Pretty funny. Let me start of by saying just by seeing that you tried to simultaneously contradict every premise and even the possibillity of the conclusion tells me that nothing you have posted here is probably going to be anything more meaningful than "Look at me, I disagree!!!" But we will see.
I don't know why you are posting anything in response to the thread title (lol) but lets look at it anyways. Who cares what the dictionary says is the definition of fun. It records whatever is the commonly held definition of fun. Everyone reading this thread by this point knows damn well that by fun I mean one of the feelings people sometimes consider to be fun. Am I going to make my thread title or conclusion 2 pages long simply to make absolutely sure that it is clear what I am saying when that goal is probably unattainable anyways? No. Continually fun means without break not forever (the way I am using it). But why would forever fun not make sense anyways?
My definition of pvp? The only problem you have with my definition of pvp is that it allows my argument to be true. Everquest could satisfy this argument UNTIL you hit one of the later premises. The end result of the argument is that people have to fight each other in person in such a way that they don't know for sure if they will win or lose and they have a fair gamble riding on the outcome of the match. Since this is what is commonly referred to as pvp, I used that name in the conclusion.
I don't need evidence for the ~ 10x content use statement because almost EVERYONE knows it is true. YOUR not even claiming its not true your just trying to give me a hard time. One or two people have claimed they thought it wasn't true (both citing everquest which uses many time sinks) but upon arguing about it realized they were wrong. Lets look at an example for a second: Star Wars KOTOR - a rpg game which really is somewhat repetive and has some stretched content but is not stretched so much that it was no longer fun for almost all the first time it is played through. This game takes 35 hours to play through. After beating it once it looses its continual fun factor and gets more and more repetitive. I can assure you that it took more than 350 hours to make this game. (Thats approximately 2 months in buisness time)
In mmorpgs the only difference is that they try to keep you from getting to the end of the content by slowing it down artificially with huge gaps between levels. Only problem is that this kills the fun by itself. Games without numerous time sinks and stretched content get boring much much faster than 10 times the rate at which they are made... Games with some stretching of content that are still somewhat fun get boring probably at around 15x the rate at which they are made. 10x is a very generous estimate.
My next statement has nothing to do with opinion and its getting stale repeatedly hearing this copout. Second this premise is not a logical argument its a premise... Its either accepted or not. And no before you ask I will not accept some dufus asking me to "prove it" when I know damn well everyone knows its true as a sign that my premise is not commonly accepted. The tricks I am referring to as if they were not obvious from things previously said, are all pretty similar: time sinks (wait 5 minutes after dieing to regain full strength), content stretching (go kill 40 billion rats to reach next level and weapons etc.), travel times, etc etc. They are all designed to SLOW the player down. Why? because the developers KNOW DAMN WELL they can't make content faster than players can get bored of it. The average reader of this argument saw what this meant plain as day.... The only thing you have disproved here is the possibility that you understand what you read. Not something I personally would be bragging about if I were you.
Dont presume to tell me to loose any terms in my argument. If you can think of a better word to use then that is something else. True, people never have the exact same definitions for words. Yours (if you even provided an alternative) would probably be no better than mine in communicating the general idea of the argument. What this premise is saying is that making a game that was 50 levels into a 200 level game without adding anything new but say moving the best equipment so that it cant be used at level 50 any more and can be used at level 200 ruins the fun of the game. It means that making players wait 20 minutes after dieing to travel or get rid of impairment or whatever ruins the fun of the game while it goes on.
I AM one of those people that supposedly like the grind. Except we don't like the actual grind we like finding ways to BEAT the grind and level faster than anyone else- ie become the best in this sense so that we maybe will be respected. All people just want love and respect its only how they find it easiest that is different.
The first gambling statement doesn't reflect some people, it reflects ALL people and your proposed counterexample does not contradict this. The argument doesn't say that people might not take a gamble with better odds if they have the chance. The gambling is only nessecary because the players HAVE to be slowed down somehow in order to let the developers make content as fast as it is used. The point here is that gambling does not kill the fun of the game even if it sets a player back some. Its the only method of slowdown or setback that does not.
to Premise 4- This one is true if you think about it. First of all I usually see just as many or more people huddled around roulette and craps tables drinking as people using the slots, but besides that slots only take 25 cents at a time to play while the others usually have much higher minimum bets... Would you rather be given a million dollars for no reason and have people tell you don't deserve it or earn a million dollars in some intelligent, skillful or hardworking way. Having earned a prize rather than being handed it can only make it better. P.S. Once again this certainly is a factual matter and not a matter of opinion.
to premise 5- lol... All this stuff you are mentioning is required in the premises for pvp to be fun. All you are saying really is that the gamble has to be fair and the player has to win sometimes- the same as the rest of the argument... There is no existing game that this argument is talking about. If a game is to be made that satisfies this argument then there CANT be constant pvp changes that unbalance the pvp matches between players. And your right rock/paper/scissors isn't a good way to go, but it is also not nessecary.
No the statement about limiting the players choices of action in pvp is not tied to any specific type of pvp. It means it can't be a sandwich type of game. There has to be enough strategies, tactics, moves whatever so that combat is not predictable. Otherwise there is no difference between fighting a player and a mob.
premise 6 all the premises are duh statements... that doesn't stop people from trying to argue with them.
premise 7 Gambling as in players pvp and they gamble some of their possesions, if they lose then are setback some but they are still willing to gamble for a chance to gain possesions. There is no grind involved in this point, the fact that bad grinds kill the game (which you argued with when it was a premise oO) has nothing to do with gambling. I suppose if the player overall lost more than he gained in these pvp gambles the game might lose its fun, although thats the way it is in real life and many people gamble anyways. The idea is, just like when you gamble in real life, that you say win a pvp and gain an awesome weapon or something and then next time lose it and you jump back and forth like that but overall your progress is slower than it would have been. The player sees the immediate progresses (big wins) he is making not the overall progress.
Conclusion- The idea is all OTHER possible cost effective solutions to providing continual fun have been eliminated. It means pvp only in any sense that isn't disqualified by the argument. What is so complicated about that. It isn't "everyone" getting down on my argument either, furthermore the only people who have have been completely unsuccessful at making meaningful arguments. Yes it is difficult to communicate complex ideas, its not my fault any more than your level of reading comprehension.
You want to talk about fault in lack of communication, then lets look at a typical statement in your post: "Saying pvp in video games terms is the equivalant of saying tree when refuring to a yard." lol... this statement makes absolutely 0 sense.
There is 2 things that make communication difficult. If the people don't have the same experiences then every word has a different meaning to person A to person B. I know that trees keep backyards private as probably do most other people. If someone has never seen a tree or has only lived in cities then you would have to continually break down your idea into smaller or smaller parts until they can see it. IE - Trees can block views, people can plant trees in their yard etc. But the problem that is going on in this forum is not due to such a lack of common experiences that we can't interpret what the other person means. Its due to lack of maturity. People have forced definitions of words this argument deals with in order to make things emotionally easier for them.
While more knowledgable or reasonable people understand what the argument is saying straight out and either agree and are able to come up with meaningful arguments, people that never think about these types of things have no clue what the argument even says. Yet this doesn't stop them from projecting what they THINK it means and then arguing with that. When they finally allow themselves to comprehend that pvp does not = player ganking as they have convinced themselves falsely to make the world easier to deal with then they all the sudden my wording is more than precise enough. This is what makes some people more intelligent than others by the way, more so then some inherent intelligent ability.
The rest of your argument seems to revolve around the fact that some guy or guys who looked at just mmorpgs without any knowledge of people or anything seperate noticed patterns in behaviors of people and named them seperate things. Well guess what, all of those things are easily explained psychologically and are caused by the same things... ALL of them. Achievers are going for their respect through being the best, socializers the funniest (in the one moment they tell a joke), killers the best again (direct competition), and explorers just like powergamer achievers are looking for new opportunities etc in places they havent seen yet. Out of these only achievers and killers are relevant to the issue of continual fun, content to explore is established as a limited resource, and socialization is seperate from the fun of the game. Achiever is simply indirect competition while killers are direct. People are NOT that complicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Not to forget that addiction doesn't equal fun. Most people get addicted easily to video games. Best example is my little brother who plays NFL2k4 on XboX Live, he plays it all the time, yet he yells, screams, whines at the game and still continue to play. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of EQ players are addicted like my friend and I were. Still I went through 3 expansions until I figured out I was not having fun at all. I was addicted, not to say obligated to play and go through the threadmill.
I think PvP is needed in long terms. I'll take UO as example. PvP in UO kept the economy going which increased interactivity between players and formed a strong community. How so? well, when you died, you'd get to the bank, withdraw some money and either find crafters or Player Vendors holding crafted items. So the crafters have a purpose in the game even if they don't PvP which they are not forced to as long as they stay under guard protection. Even if there are Miner PKers in UO, you didn't lose much but maybe 1 hour of mining which is a ridiculously small amount of time compared to the time you mined without getting PKed. The more interactivity you get between the players, the longer a game will run. PvP is one more way to interact. The only way PvP can work in MMORPGs is when you have nothing to camp for countless hours, nothing special to lose. Crafters wouldn't be useful if you could camp out super weapons and super armors. PvP also brought Bounty Hounters *cough*RPing*cough*. it brought Heros and anti-Pk guilds. It brought something to care about when you were going out of town for any purpose. I don't understand why people whine when they get PKed and not when they simply get killed by a monster they crossed in the forest.
And Sims Online doesn't count... you don't fight to progress, either monsters or players. Medieval-like MMORPGs need PvP.
"I am trying to see things from your perspective but I just can't get my head that far up my @$$."
I play NFL2K4 as well, I yell and scream and get angry at the game. But that is all part of the fun. Just like watching your favorite team on TV and they throw an interception, "ah, you piece of crap", but still fun. Getting angry and having fun can co-exist.
Originally posted by geld P1 This Premise cannot apply to mmorpgs, you have drawn from a figure (the accuracy of this figure is questionable as well) which only relates to the rate players consume content in a single player game. This does not accurately define the rate players will get bored of an mmorpg, as there are other factors. Here are four examples: Exploration: Although this may seem as though it is limited by content, it can also include things like meeting new interesting people. Achievement: This is the main focus of your premise, as there is only so much one can achieve, and only so much equipment they can collect. If this is your ONLY source of enjoyment from an mmorpg then you will get bored of the game eventually. Socialisation: This is one of the areas that people will never get bored of. Chat rooms have been around for as long as the internet has been around. Competition: This does not neccesarily mean PVP, although if competition is your main focus then you will enjoy a PVP game more than a non PVP game most likely. This is not a complete list, as there are other factors. The mere fact that there are many mmorpgs that are still full of players, long after the time it took for the game to be developped has passed, directly contradicts this premise. Yes, the players may have consumed all the available content, but the game has obviously not ceased to be fun. P2 This premise is accurate, however it is looking at it only from your point of view. It would seem that your primary goal is to achieve the most, however if you have a different goal, then these "tricks" (If I could get a definition of what you mean by tricks, that would be appreciated) may not cause much, or any, stress. It all depends on your style of play. Only the first sentence of this premise is true, because it uses the word 'can' as in, that is one possibility. This of course requires the person to actually enjoy gambling. Also there always can be some stress involved in the loss of equipment/levels, whether the event was fair or not. This may, or may not be true, it depends on the situation. It requires that the person enjoys gambling, which may not be true at all. If I am understanding this correctly, you are stating that you will ALWAYS know if you are going to win against a computer controlled opponent, whereas you may not know this vs another human opponent. While he latter is most certainly true, the former is not. If you are fighting a computer controlled opponent which is of similar strength to your character, you may not know if you are going to win or not. There are many random variables that affect the outcome of the battle in most mmorpgs. Again this is not always true. It depends on the situation. I know of people who would feel bad if they had directly caused someone else any trouble, as much so as if they had been caused the same amount of trouble themsleves. So either way for them a PVP interaction, on any mmorpg for this person would be a bad experience.
Actually premise 1 was dealing WITH mmorpgs. If a developer takes 3 years to make a game someone is going to get bored of it in 3 months (more than 10x). And this is regarding content that is not stretched to the point where some of the fun is ruined, IE if you have a game where there are time sinks all over and thousands of kills required between levels then I am considering that stretched content. This premise is pretty darn accurate.
Next, first of all, all 4 of your supposed different aspects of fun in an mmorpg are the same psychologically. Exploration can not keep a game continually fun so it is taken out. Socialization is completely seperate from the game, that is why I removed it from my argument. You can talk on the phone while playing a crappy game and maybe have fun, that doesn't make the game good. In fact with games that aren't that interesting as a game people just congregate in one place and talk and don't even play the game. Competition is what this argument starts out with, not sure what kind of competition you think would not be pvp since pvp is not a precise term, but regardless my argument eliminates everything but pvp for use of making the game continually fun.
Premise2, the tricks mean time sinks, having 200 levels of killing the same mobs with the same pictures but different names/colors/damage, travel times, etc. Causing stress is not the issue here, its weather or not these remove the fun. If one of these causes you stress then thats like extremely not fun...
Premise 3 Actually the whole premise is true. For the millionth time I am not talking about what people answer when you ask them "do you like gambling". I am talking about what they feel. To say someone doesn't like gambling in this sense is to say they don't like to progress in the game. Someone might decide that overall they don't want to participate in it if there is an easier way or if they are not getting somewhere with it. I'll agree with you that there is some stress always involved in losing (be it basketball whatever) however its really negligable when the conditions are right. The point is if you prepared yourself for the possibility of facing whatever punishment you get for losing then it won't bother you longer than half a second and not much at that.
Premise 4 Gambling is not something that someone can be born with an innate emotional hatred of. Anyways All you are saying here is that you don't know if this is true or not. Well it is. If someone can win something because they partially earned it, its better than to be just handed something. This is important because otherwise random damage mobs (or similar)could be used to substitute for people.
Premise 5 No your understanding is slightly incorrect. I am saying a person will THINK they know they will always be able to kill a certain mob. Then if they do happen to die to it they will get really pissed. While I may grant you that a fighting a mob your own level in a sandwich type game might be random, its not the same thing because in order for the outcome to be random there it has to be forced random as in just throwing a die. If the player has enough control that his skill determines the outcome of the fight then he will make an asessment as to weather he can repeatedly defeat the mob or not. An ecounter that just depends on the roll of a die is excluded by premise 4.
Premise 6 I think your statement pretty much describes EVERYONE to some degree who has experienced a certain type of bad experience and not found something overall better about the whole thing in the end. This person you specifically speak of, does he refrain from playing basketball or ping pong etc for fear of making someone lose or refrain from ever saying anything funny so as to not take the attention of someone else for a second? THe pure example of such a person would never be able to do anything. PVP is not killing or robbing someone or something. Its an action in a game, and as game designs progress and consumers mature towards it and provide information to each other this is the way it will be seen.
Conclusion
Many people on this forum fail to understand that people are really quite predictable and easy to understand. If they were not, the world would not be able to have any of the structure it has now in social matters, buisness, education etc. Crime would be rampant because the system in place would not discourage it. Schools would have no success in educating students. Buisnesses would have no idea how to succeed (In this case mmorpgs). But they do. Because people are all pretty much very similar in certain ways. A person cannot be born with some innate emotional hatred for the absolute stripped concept of gambling. A person might say they hate cosinos because they always leave with less money than they came, but this does not then apply to gaining or losing items in pvp. If in general a person always lost and/or came out worse off in the long run they might "decide" they don't like it. But this doesn't change their emotional feelings towards it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Ahem, there is a assumption in PVP you can be killed, which is not fun (though it could be), which is a loss or you can kill another, which is fun (though it may not be) and is therefor a win. In fact, isn't the choice in PVP really that between losing and delayed losing? If you die by another player, let us consider that for the moment undesirable. However if you defeat another player, in most PVP games, you don't profit by it. If you don't enjoy the failure of others, then there can be said to be no reward.
Just a quick thought I had... though if you want to know, I really enjoy team PVP, which has a completely different mindset to it then full PVP. Wish I had thought the above more carefully and explained better, but hopefully you get the gist.
I can relate to Kriminal because he is one of the only intelligent people on this thread. However I think his argument could be more effective if it were whittled down to simple, necessary statements. A lot of this, of course, would be to reduce confusion amongst the readers. Here is what I believe:
ARGUMENT A
NPC AI is much less complex than the human mind.
Therefore, 1) NPC's are more limited than player characters in the number of available actions they can take.
AND 2) NPC's are far more predictable than player characters.
These conclusions (1 & 2) will now be used as premesi for the next two arguments (B & C) respectively.
ARGUMENT B
NPC's are more limited than player characters in the number of available actions they can take.
The smaller the number of options you have, the more often a pattern will occur.
The more often a pattern occurs in a task, the more mundane that task becomes over time.
Therefore, a given type of PVE encounter has a higher chance of becoming a mundane task over time than a given type of PVP encounter.
ARGUMENT C
NPC's are far more predictable than player characters.
The more you can predict something, the less chance there is of failure.
The less chance there is of failing, the less challenging a task is.
Therefore, a PVE encounter has a lesser chance of being challenging than a PVP encounter.
Conclusions from arguments B & C will now be used as premesi in argument D.
ARGUMENT D
A given type of PVE encounter has a higher chance of becoming a mundane task over time than a given type of PVP encounter.
A PVE encounter has a lesser chance of being challenging than a PVP encounter.
Challenging is generally considered a good quality in a game.
Mundane is generally considered a poor quality in a game.
The purpose of playing a game is to have fun.
Therefore, all else being equal, a game with PVP has a better chance of being fun than a game without PVP.
The author of this post is completely incorrect in his definition of fun. The word fun is not universal, and so you cannot state that anything is fun and be correct. ie:
Playing basketball is fun.
Killing other players on online RPGs is fun
Playing hopscotch is fun
Gambling is fun
All of these statements are completely INCORRECT unless you read them like this:
Playing basketball is fun for me.
Killing other players on online RPGs is fun for me.
Playing hopscotch is fun for me.
Gambling is fun for me.
Therefore the author is stating that PVP is required for an online RPG to be continuously fun FOR HIM! Which is only an opinion, and not a statement of fact. He should not have used the word fun, at all. Rather he should have used "generally more popular", or something similar. Implying that his conclusion applies to OTHER PEOPLE is COMPLETELY wrong.
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
Well instead of saying 'generally more popular' i said "has a better chance of being fun," which means if an average gamer sits down to play, chances are he/she will have more fun with the game that includes pk than with the game that excludes it. I understand there are some people who prefer games that impose less challenge and involve more repetition, but these are the minority, according to terms popularly associated with the term 'game.'
I was referring to the original poster in my last post.
Regarding your post it seems to be technically correct. But there is also a problem with looking at the mmorpg market from such a narrow view. You are stating that PVE encounters will become repetitive and boring much quicker than PVP encounters, which is correct, no question. But I do not believe PVE Encounters are the main reason why people play current online RPGs. I believe they play them more for the social aspects. So changing that system to PVP only, will not cater to a lot of the current mmorpg market at all. This is, of course, a subjective opinion, and cannot be accepted as fact, (Kriminal99 states several subjective opinions as his premises, and then tries to pass them off as facts).
I do however believe that a fully PVP game will be successful, as there are many people who do enjoy PVP. I don't think most of them are currently playing mmorpgs, as there really aren't any mmorpgs designed to cater for competitive gamers/Gamers who enjoy challenges.
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
I do agree that most pvpers like myself are currently not playing any games right now or they are playing but arent happy. I cant name one game right now that looks appealing to me like old UO. I agree with Kriminal 100% with his posts. But I still say ur not gonna convert non pvpers to pvpers....its just not gonna happen. We just gotta hope that the non pvpers dont go and buy the great looking upcoming pvp games on their way and bitch about the pvp.
Originally posted by TMcC We just gotta hope that the non pvpers dont go and buy the great looking upcoming pvp games on their way and bitch about the pvp.
As opposed to PvPers pre-ordering a great looking PvE game (City of Heores) and bitching about lack of PvP. It's a 2 way street and both sides do enough whining and bitching. Though in my personal experience, the PvP community is the most vocal one out there. I see more people whining about lack of PvP than I do people whining about PvP.
As I stated before no hardcore pvper is going to buy a game with no pvp so that last statement you made heartless is somewhat bullshit. A pvper might complain about changes in a pvp game that are made by the noobies that get stomped over and over again....well lets just say they influence changes and have in the past. Let me put to you this way. What happens when you touch a hot stove? you get burnt. What happens when you put your finger in boiling water? you get burnt. What happens when a non pvper buys a pvp game? BURNT...so pvpers buy pvp games and non pvpers buy the other games if u get my drift.
No hardcore PvPer will ever buy a strictly PvE game? You have got to be joking. How can you be so sure? Just because you consider yourself a hardcore PvPer does not mean that you speak for all PvPers worldwide. You're just assuming things.
I'm a PvPer and I play PvE games. Although I enjoy PvP in games where actual player skill and not the uberness of my character plays a major role.
Unless there is some unwritten rule of being a "hardcore" PvPer that forbids PvPers to purchase a PvE game.
I am speaking from the viewpoint of a person who does not like PvP.
I am reading about PvP'ers saying that they enjoy PvP on games which require skill and not uberness, but thats not what MMORPG's are about. on a RPG you can get Uber, if you want a game where you are on equal footing then go and play quake or CS. on a roleplaying game characters advance and have different skills, and personal skill is and should be less of an issue. if i am 5 levels above you, or have a better sword then i should beat you, because thats how RPG's should be.
Is this some graduation thingy? Some test that all PvPers have to go throguh to be called PvPers? Because in any forum, in any game, about anything and 3.000 times a month, some pvpers write exactly this post about exaxtly the same thing, with exactly the same flame of other players and the same flawed logic, without the same lack of grasp of reality.
It is getting REALLY old and I just wish one day, some PvPer coudl step up to the plate with at least some knowledge or even grasp of reality.
PvP is great fun, if done right.. it is a disaster if done wrong. get that through your heads... If a game wants to make money, they have to do things extremly right not to scare away their audience. WW2OL did things very right! Huge PvP environment! Why not so many people play that game? Is PvP lacking..? no.... Not in any way. It is the most wonderful PvP! or Shadowbane a team of old school Everquesters make a full blown pvP game!! Planetside!! Boom bomm, Sci Fi PvP galore!! So why is those games not the biggest on the market?
Because not even PvPers care that much about PvP when it comes down to it, if the game system and the game graphics and all the other parts are not done right! They are even more important than the so old dead horse PvP.
Ok..? Get that...? Grasp it, understand it, love it.
Please.... Can I once see one PvPer with brains attached, that can write something original instead of cut and paste this stupid post somewhere for the umpteenth time, then there could be a sensible discussion. As long as this onesided crap with flames sent in all directions and assumptions not based in reality, then the whole subject is just a flame fest without getting anywhere.. and PvPers will still have to wait for a good game..
Since they can not, even under gunpoint, give any good, sensible feedback above "PvP roxxors".
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force"
i think most people assume that the graphics and gameplay etc are done right. its more or less obvious that is these main features aren't right then nobody will play the game, but they just want the PvP to be right also (cant beleive i am defending a PvP'er!)
Comments
Premise 1: Players consume or advance through static precreated game content at an average rate of more than 10 times that which it takes to create it. This means that in order to sustain the fun level of a mmorpg just based on single player type static content you would need more than 10x the man hours than it took to make the game to begin with. I do not believe this is cost effective, and obviously neither do mmorpg developers as is evidence by their attempted use of tricks to extend game content.
This Premise cannot apply to mmorpgs, you have drawn from a figure (the accuracy of this figure is questionable as well) which only relates to the rate players consume content in a single player game. This does not accurately define the rate players will get bored of an mmorpg, as there are other factors. Here are four examples:
Exploration: Although this may seem as though it is limited by content, it can also include things like meeting new interesting people.
Achievement: This is the main focus of your premise, as there is only so much one can achieve, and only so much equipment they can collect. If this is your ONLY source of enjoyment from an mmorpg then you will get bored of the game eventually.
Socialisation: This is one of the areas that people will never get bored of. Chat rooms have been around for as long as the internet has been around.
Competition: This does not neccesarily mean PVP, although if competition is your main focus then you will enjoy a PVP game more than a non PVP game most likely.
This is not a complete list, as there are other factors.
The mere fact that there are many mmorpgs that are still full of players, long after the time it took for the game to be developped has passed, directly contradicts this premise. Yes, the players may have consumed all the available content, but the game has obviously not ceased to be fun.
Premise 2: Tricks used to slow down players from consuming what content there is or to stretch the content artificially lessen fun to the degree which they are used. Setting a player back randomly is stressful to the player. this stress can be averted by to the degree that the player expected to be setback for the particular action he was taking. However most of the time the player will avoid situation where he would be setback. But IF there is a possibility of rewards that are worth the risk he will take the action anyways. this is gambling.
This premise is accurate, however it is looking at it only from your point of view. It would seem that your primary goal is to achieve the most, however if you have a different goal, then these "tricks" (If I could get a definition of what you mean by tricks, that would be appreciated) may not cause much, or any, stress. It all depends on your style of play.
Premise 3: Gambling can slow a person's progress overall without reducing the amount of fun, because at each gamble there can be a chance of large gains for the player to look forward to, there is no extreme stress for the setback because the player expected this possibility, and overall the player still moves at a slower pace.
Only the first sentence of this premise is true, because it uses the word 'can' as in, that is one possibility. This of course requires the person to actually enjoy gambling.
Also there always can be some stress involved in the loss of equipment/levels, whether the event was fair or not.
Premise 4: Gambling where ones skills and knowledge is involved is more fun than pure luck gambling.
This may, or may not be true, it depends on the situation. It requires that the person enjoys gambling, which may not be true at all.
Premise 5: The only entity to date in video games unpredictable enough so that the player will not just assume he can beat it (and therefore dieing to it would be random punsihment) or that he has no chance against it (so he will just avoid it), and can retain this unpredictability through a near infinite amount of interactions, is another player. Also the nature of the pvp can not be to limit the players choice of action to the point where PVP becomes predictable.
If I am understanding this correctly, you are stating that you will ALWAYS know if you are going to win against a computer controlled opponent, whereas you may not know this vs another human opponent. While he latter is most certainly true, the former is not. If you are fighting a computer controlled opponent which is of similar strength to your character, you may not know if you are going to win or not. There are many random variables that affect the outcome of the battle in most mmorpgs.
Premise 6: The more the person has a chance of gaining the more fun it is to participate in the gamble, but he must be randomly reinforced by winning sometimes.
Again this is not always true. It depends on the situation. I know of people who would feel bad if they had directly caused someone else any trouble, as much so as if they had been caused the same amount of trouble themsleves. So either way for them a PVP interaction, on any mmorpg for this person would be a bad experience.
Premise 7: Since gambling can slow a persons content consumption to any degree without reducing the fun or causing stress signifigantly, it can slow consuption of the games content to the point where Developers could supply more at the rate it is used.
Conclusion: The only possible way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun in an MMORPG is to have a PVP Based MMORPG where players take gambles by choice on their battles between each other.
It seems to me that most of these premises assume that all users draw enjoyment from mmorpgs in the same way. Which is a flawed view in and of itself. Your argument is that pvp is REQUIRED to sustain enjoyment in an mmorpg. But as I said earlier, if you draw your enjoyment from other parts of the game, you will not enjoy a pvp based mmorpg at all. Also you might be able to sustain enjoyment from other sources, such as socialisation (just one example). You really should look at ALL possibilities before drawing a conclusion like this.
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
First of all if any of my premises were not true you wouldnt be making unbacked claims to the matter you would be trying to point out how. As I have said many times simply claiming the fact means nothing more than that you want to disprove my premises.
This argument says nothing about the success of mmorpgs. Its talking about continual fun. Until a continually fun rpg comes out the ones closest to that will be succesful...
Ok.. there are pvp based mmorpgs to come out since "uo" and "meridian 59"... Neocron for one that is purely pvp. Second, due to the amount of time it takes to develop a mmorpg, the time span you are considering "recent" when you claim "recent games don't have pvp as an option" is completely irrelevant. Lastly, for your final argument you are either doing one of two things:
1. You are basically putting MMORPG developers on some godly all-knowing pedestal when it comes to deciding the right direction for mmorpgs to g. If you were create a forum just for mmorpg devs, it would probably look a heck of alot like this forum does. As you can see just by browsing their websites each developer has drastically different ideas about what a mmorpg "should" be like.
2. You are saying that since so many people disagree with me I must be wrong. However since people can be wrong this argument is useless.
Lastly I didn't admit to being wrong about anything to you... That statement you quoted was in regard to the fact that you quoted an argument that had nothing to do with the main argument and addressed someones meaningless claim "I don't like any form of pvp therefore no form of pvp can be fun to me"
The point is Its really annoying that I am repeatedly having to respond to arguments which have nothing to do with the argument the thread is based on.
Your first assumption is not off at all I suppose, as in order to retain their unpredictability in a pvp match an enemy has to be able to win sometimes so someone must also lose. But no I never played UO pre-trammel, I played it a little bit like soon after blackthornes revenge was released and never really got into it.
So you say you recognize that competition is nessecary to keep things fun. Do you also recognize that this argument says nothing about what type of game is being played? That means its basically just using pvp to mean competition.
Next you are saying that you don't like to forced into competition that you don't expect and then lose. This is also in the argument...
And to your final request, the answer is no. This argument is dealing with pure ideas. Specific examples are not needed to deal with pure ideas if you use logical thinking skills. I have many ideas about what contributes to making pvp better or worse but they are for a different discussion. I will not give ammunition for people to get this thread any more off topic than it already does from the arguments people try to make against it.
I assume that by posting this here you believe that it has some relevance to this discussion. If so you must be really good at blocking out what people respond to you with and repeatedly posting the same thing over and over. Random player ganking = unexpected pvp which my argument eliminates. Not to mention a host of other things that daoc has that eliminates it from the argument.
The simple fact that you would even try this should make it blatantly obvious why your and probably many other peoples raw opinion about the argument is quite meaningless. You continue to project one or two bad experiences on to all forms of pvp yet still make the conveniant exception for pve which is the same thing except you don't lose...
This argument is regarding a completely factual situation. The statement "In order to be continually fun a mmorpg must be pvp based" is either right or it is wrong. If you claim it is right then it is right. If you claim it is not right then you must therefore claim it is wrong. Either way it has nothing to do with opinion.
The sims online is a purely social game. I don't include social aspect in my argument because A) any game can have a social aspect and
in games in which the social aspect is the only fun, you will find that people will give up playing the game to as much degree is nessecary in order to simply hang out in large groups just to socialize. This to me says that this game is not really fun at all as a video game.
I hypothesized in the sims this meant that people would just stand around each other not playing the game or they would have some way to train their character a bit while doing this that didn't impair their abillity to socialize in large groups. Since then I checked into it and I was right. People in that game make large gyms, large art training areas etc etc so they can all hang out in the same place and talk.
Next. Im not talking about what is continually fun for "me" This is something that people arguing with me seriously need to get over. I am talking about what is fun for everyone by virtue of them being a human being. I am talking about the very basic feelings which are common to all people. Realize that if these feelings were not the same for different people then they would not be named in such a way to reflect the situation that causes them because this would be ineffective in communicating them between different people. In fact communication of feelings at all in such a case would be very difficult. Stop and think about what you are saying for 2 seconds and you will realize it is rediculous.
The only reason people are making this rediculous argument here is because people hold a second definition for fun in their minds that is "what people say when you ask them if they are having fun" while what I am referring to when I say fun as experience of any emotion a person might like.
Apparently you don't like psychology. Argue with this before you start claiming the entire field is useless. You must realize that if all people were right simply because they "felt" like they were, then people would never disagree because they would only think they were right when they actually were. Therefore people must not always be right regarding same things. From this we must conclude that either people either claim to be right when they don't even feel like they are (happens but not often) or that people can be wrong even when they feel like they are right.
The point here is two fold. Psychology is just common experience melded with common sense or logic. Second, You and many other people keep spouting "fun is just an opinion" as if this statement was a self explaining truth. It isn't. Its just a statement someone said to you at one time, and since it doesn't contradict anything your limited knowledge base of people contains your unconsious gives it the go ahead and you feel like your right when you say it. Unfortunately just because you feel like you are right doesn't make you so to other people. Without any explanation (of which there is probably none) to the statement "fun is just an opinon" repeated assertion by you and others of it is meaningless.
My premises nessecitate the conclusion as far as I can see. Point out your idea of a counterexample so we can clear this misunderstanding otherwise.
You are really immature. Grow up. If you need to stomp your feet or grunt or whatever before posting, there really isn't any need to run around spouting insults at people because it makes you mad someone had an idea you didn't think of. Why do you say people read at the 6th grade level by the way? There really isn't a simplest form that would allow everyone to understand what the argument is saying. People all have slightly different definitions of words and therefore communication is difficult no matter what. That does not make people that don't understand what I am saying "readers at the 6th grade level". I really couldn't care less that immature people like you come into threads like this and get all defensive over the fact that someone had an idea that they didn't. Obviously I have quite a lot of experience dealing with this type of attitude. I don't styme my ideas to make them easier to swallow.
Oh thats real meaningful.. a poll... To bad you weren't here earlier when someone else tried this or for the mock rendition thread... A) Without looking at the poll, the number of people who agree or disagree does not effect weather the ideas are right or wrong.
Such a poll doesn't even reflect the opinion of the general populace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Let Explain... No... to much to explain.. let me sum up.
Princes marry Humperdink in little less than half an hour.
Ok no really.. here is the basis of what all this means.
1- People find fun.. in what stimulates thier minds...
2- Many people think different chicks are HOT... and ALL the chicks are HOT .. but not to the same people.
3- Fun is not a STATIC Physical act or duty. I can find fun in killing my neighbor, just as someone else can find fun in picking flowers. And these may OR may not be influenced by society or inate genetic mentality.
4- Therefore FUN.. is never just one thing. Just like.. if everyone liked the same thing.. the world would all be the SAME.
You can Logically try to EXPLAIN Fun any way you want.. it doens't reflect on the REAL world.
Like.. try to explain how Salt tastes.. without using the word "salty".
Just doens't work.. the problem with psycology .. is that it doens't work on everyone. Cause everyone has a different way of thinking. Crazy people. People with chemecil imbalances, and certain things will acuse them to THINK completly different. And yes you can say.
The only PROVABLE ACCURATE FACT that can be stated is this.
"Fun to someone is what ever it is they think is fun"
Let me prove this... here is a POLL.
Outkast Studios
Mystic Online Community Forums
∙name: EViLD0G
∙clan: [EXE]
∙playing: EQ, SIMS, AC, AC2, DAoC, FFXI, AW, RS
∙planning: Ryzom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Not to forget that addiction doesn't equal fun. Most people get addicted easily to video games. Best example is my little brother who plays NFL2k4 on XboX Live, he plays it all the time, yet he yells, screams, whines at the game and still continue to play. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of EQ players are addicted like my friend and I were. Still I went through 3 expansions until I figured out I was not having fun at all. I was addicted, not to say obligated to play and go through the threadmill.
I think PvP is needed in long terms. I'll take UO as example. PvP in UO kept the economy going which increased interactivity between players and formed a strong community. How so? well, when you died, you'd get to the bank, withdraw some money and either find crafters or Player Vendors holding crafted items. So the crafters have a purpose in the game even if they don't PvP which they are not forced to as long as they stay under guard protection. Even if there are Miner PKers in UO, you didn't lose much but maybe 1 hour of mining which is a ridiculously small amount of time compared to the time you mined without getting PKed. The more interactivity you get between the players, the longer a game will run. PvP is one more way to interact. The only way PvP can work in MMORPGs is when you have nothing to camp for countless hours, nothing special to lose. Crafters wouldn't be useful if you could camp out super weapons and super armors. PvP also brought Bounty Hounters *cough*RPing*cough*. it brought Heros and anti-Pk guilds. It brought something to care about when you were going out of town for any purpose. I don't understand why people whine when they get PKed and not when they simply get killed by a monster they crossed in the forest.
And Sims Online doesn't count... you don't fight to progress, either monsters or players. Medieval-like MMORPGs need PvP.
"I am trying to see things from your perspective but I just can't get my head that far up my @$$."
I play NFL2K4 as well, I yell and scream and get angry at the game. But that is all part of the fun. Just like watching your favorite team on TV and they throw an interception, "ah, you piece of crap", but still fun. Getting angry and having fun can co-exist.
Funny, I was addicted to EQ also, but I had a hell of alot of fun!
"When you're in prison, dont be no ones bitch, its bad for you..."
The Offspring
-----------------Censored------------------
Actually premise 1 was dealing WITH mmorpgs. If a developer takes 3 years to make a game someone is going to get bored of it in 3 months (more than 10x). And this is regarding content that is not stretched to the point where some of the fun is ruined, IE if you have a game where there are time sinks all over and thousands of kills required between levels then I am considering that stretched content. This premise is pretty darn accurate.
Next, first of all, all 4 of your supposed different aspects of fun in an mmorpg are the same psychologically. Exploration can not keep a game continually fun so it is taken out. Socialization is completely seperate from the game, that is why I removed it from my argument. You can talk on the phone while playing a crappy game and maybe have fun, that doesn't make the game good. In fact with games that aren't that interesting as a game people just congregate in one place and talk and don't even play the game. Competition is what this argument starts out with, not sure what kind of competition you think would not be pvp since pvp is not a precise term, but regardless my argument eliminates everything but pvp for use of making the game continually fun.
Premise2, the tricks mean time sinks, having 200 levels of killing the same mobs with the same pictures but different names/colors/damage, travel times, etc. Causing stress is not the issue here, its weather or not these remove the fun. If one of these causes you stress then thats like extremely not fun...
Premise 3 Actually the whole premise is true. For the millionth time I am not talking about what people answer when you ask them "do you like gambling". I am talking about what they feel. To say someone doesn't like gambling in this sense is to say they don't like to progress in the game. Someone might decide that overall they don't want to participate in it if there is an easier way or if they are not getting somewhere with it. I'll agree with you that there is some stress always involved in losing (be it basketball whatever) however its really negligable when the conditions are right. The point is if you prepared yourself for the possibility of facing whatever punishment you get for losing then it won't bother you longer than half a second and not much at that.
Premise 4 Gambling is not something that someone can be born with an innate emotional hatred of. Anyways All you are saying here is that you don't know if this is true or not. Well it is. If someone can win something because they partially earned it, its better than to be just handed something. This is important because otherwise random damage mobs (or similar)could be used to substitute for people.
Premise 5 No your understanding is slightly incorrect. I am saying a person will THINK they know they will always be able to kill a certain mob. Then if they do happen to die to it they will get really pissed. While I may grant you that a fighting a mob your own level in a sandwich type game might be random, its not the same thing because in order for the outcome to be random there it has to be forced random as in just throwing a die. If the player has enough control that his skill determines the outcome of the fight then he will make an asessment as to weather he can repeatedly defeat the mob or not. An ecounter that just depends on the roll of a die is excluded by premise 4.
Premise 6 I think your statement pretty much describes EVERYONE to some degree who has experienced a certain type of bad experience and not found something overall better about the whole thing in the end. This person you specifically speak of, does he refrain from playing basketball or ping pong etc for fear of making someone lose or refrain from ever saying anything funny so as to not take the attention of someone else for a second? THe pure example of such a person would never be able to do anything. PVP is not killing or robbing someone or something. Its an action in a game, and as game designs progress and consumers mature towards it and provide information to each other this is the way it will be seen.
Conclusion
Many people on this forum fail to understand that people are really quite predictable and easy to understand. If they were not, the world would not be able to have any of the structure it has now in social matters, buisness, education etc. Crime would be rampant because the system in place would not discourage it. Schools would have no success in educating students. Buisnesses would have no idea how to succeed (In this case mmorpgs). But they do. Because people are all pretty much very similar in certain ways. A person cannot be born with some innate emotional hatred for the absolute stripped concept of gambling. A person might say they hate cosinos because they always leave with less money than they came, but this does not then apply to gaining or losing items in pvp. If in general a person always lost and/or came out worse off in the long run they might "decide" they don't like it. But this doesn't change their emotional feelings towards it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
"I am trying to see things from your perspective but I just can't get my head that far up my @$$."
This thread rocks...
Right or wrong... Kriminal99 should win an award for most persistent person.
He doesn't give up, ignores logical arguments, and posts paragraphs and pages at a time.
Rock on, dude!!!
Ahem, there is a assumption in PVP you can be killed, which is not fun (though it could be), which is a loss or you can kill another, which is fun (though it may not be) and is therefor a win. In fact, isn't the choice in PVP really that between losing and delayed losing? If you die by another player, let us consider that for the moment undesirable. However if you defeat another player, in most PVP games, you don't profit by it. If you don't enjoy the failure of others, then there can be said to be no reward.
Just a quick thought I had... though if you want to know, I really enjoy team PVP, which has a completely different mindset to it then full PVP. Wish I had thought the above more carefully and explained better, but hopefully you get the gist.
I can relate to Kriminal because he is one of the only intelligent people on this thread. However I think his argument could be more effective if it were whittled down to simple, necessary statements. A lot of this, of course, would be to reduce confusion amongst the readers. Here is what I believe:
ARGUMENT A
NPC AI is much less complex than the human mind.
Therefore, 1) NPC's are more limited than player characters in the number of available actions they can take.
AND 2) NPC's are far more predictable than player characters.
These conclusions (1 & 2) will now be used as premesi for the next two arguments (B & C) respectively.
ARGUMENT B
NPC's are more limited than player characters in the number of available actions they can take.
The smaller the number of options you have, the more often a pattern will occur.
The more often a pattern occurs in a task, the more mundane that task becomes over time.
Therefore, a given type of PVE encounter has a higher chance of becoming a mundane task over time than a given type of PVP encounter.
ARGUMENT C
NPC's are far more predictable than player characters.
The more you can predict something, the less chance there is of failure.
The less chance there is of failing, the less challenging a task is.
Therefore, a PVE encounter has a lesser chance of being challenging than a PVP encounter.
Conclusions from arguments B & C will now be used as premesi in argument D.
ARGUMENT D
A given type of PVE encounter has a higher chance of becoming a mundane task over time than a given type of PVP encounter.
A PVE encounter has a lesser chance of being challenging than a PVP encounter.
Challenging is generally considered a good quality in a game.
Mundane is generally considered a poor quality in a game.
The purpose of playing a game is to have fun.
Therefore, all else being equal, a game with PVP has a better chance of being fun than a game without PVP.
The author of this post is completely incorrect in his definition of fun. The word fun is not universal, and so you cannot state that anything is fun and be correct. ie:
Playing basketball is fun.
Killing other players on online RPGs is fun
Playing hopscotch is fun
Gambling is fun
All of these statements are completely INCORRECT unless you read them like this:
Playing basketball is fun for me.
Killing other players on online RPGs is fun for me.
Playing hopscotch is fun for me.
Gambling is fun for me.
Therefore the author is stating that PVP is required for an online RPG to be continuously fun FOR HIM! Which is only an opinion, and not a statement of fact. He should not have used the word fun, at all. Rather he should have used "generally more popular", or something similar. Implying that his conclusion applies to OTHER PEOPLE is COMPLETELY wrong.
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
I was referring to the original poster in my last post.
Regarding your post it seems to be technically correct. But there is also a problem with looking at the mmorpg market from such a narrow view. You are stating that PVE encounters will become repetitive and boring much quicker than PVP encounters, which is correct, no question. But I do not believe PVE Encounters are the main reason why people play current online RPGs. I believe they play them more for the social aspects. So changing that system to PVP only, will not cater to a lot of the current mmorpg market at all. This is, of course, a subjective opinion, and cannot be accepted as fact, (Kriminal99 states several subjective opinions as his premises, and then tries to pass them off as facts).
I do however believe that a fully PVP game will be successful, as there are many people who do enjoy PVP. I don't think most of them are currently playing mmorpgs, as there really aren't any mmorpgs designed to cater for competitive gamers/Gamers who enjoy challenges.
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
I do agree that most pvpers like myself are currently not playing any games right now or they are playing but arent happy. I cant name one game right now that looks appealing to me like old UO. I agree with Kriminal 100% with his posts. But I still say ur not gonna convert non pvpers to pvpers....its just not gonna happen. We just gotta hope that the non pvpers dont go and buy the great looking upcoming pvp games on their way and bitch about the pvp.
As I stated before no hardcore pvper is going to buy a game with no pvp so that last statement you made heartless is somewhat bullshit. A pvper might complain about changes in a pvp game that are made by the noobies that get stomped over and over again....well lets just say they influence changes and have in the past. Let me put to you this way. What happens when you touch a hot stove? you get burnt. What happens when you put your finger in boiling water? you get burnt. What happens when a non pvper buys a pvp game? BURNT...so pvpers buy pvp games and non pvpers buy the other games if u get my drift.
No hardcore PvPer will ever buy a strictly PvE game? You have got to be joking. How can you be so sure? Just because you consider yourself a hardcore PvPer does not mean that you speak for all PvPers worldwide. You're just assuming things.
I'm a PvPer and I play PvE games. Although I enjoy PvP in games where actual player skill and not the uberness of my character plays a major role.
Unless there is some unwritten rule of being a "hardcore" PvPer that forbids PvPers to purchase a PvE game.
I am speaking from the viewpoint of a person who does not like PvP.
I am reading about PvP'ers saying that they enjoy PvP on games which require skill and not uberness, but thats not what MMORPG's are about. on a RPG you can get Uber, if you want a game where you are on equal footing then go and play quake or CS. on a roleplaying game characters advance and have different skills, and personal skill is and should be less of an issue. if i am 5 levels above you, or have a better sword then i should beat you, because thats how RPG's should be.
Muahahahahahahaha
MUAHAHAHAHAHA
One question.
Is this some graduation thingy? Some test that all PvPers have to go throguh to be called PvPers? Because in any forum, in any game, about anything and 3.000 times a month, some pvpers write exactly this post about exaxtly the same thing, with exactly the same flame of other players and the same flawed logic, without the same lack of grasp of reality.
It is getting REALLY old and I just wish one day, some PvPer coudl step up to the plate with at least some knowledge or even grasp of reality.
PvP is great fun, if done right.. it is a disaster if done wrong. get that through your heads... If a game wants to make money, they have to do things extremly right not to scare away their audience. WW2OL did things very right! Huge PvP environment! Why not so many people play that game? Is PvP lacking..? no.... Not in any way. It is the most wonderful PvP! or Shadowbane a team of old school Everquesters make a full blown pvP game!! Planetside!! Boom bomm, Sci Fi PvP galore!! So why is those games not the biggest on the market?
Because not even PvPers care that much about PvP when it comes down to it, if the game system and the game graphics and all the other parts are not done right! They are even more important than the so old dead horse PvP.
Ok..? Get that...? Grasp it, understand it, love it.
Please.... Can I once see one PvPer with brains attached, that can write something original instead of cut and paste this stupid post somewhere for the umpteenth time, then there could be a sensible discussion. As long as this onesided crap with flames sent in all directions and assumptions not based in reality, then the whole subject is just a flame fest without getting anywhere.. and PvPers will still have to wait for a good game..
Since they can not, even under gunpoint, give any good, sensible feedback above "PvP roxxors".
"This is not a game to be tossed aside lightly.
It should be thrown with great force"
Muahahahahahahaha
MUAHAHAHAHAHA