Well horrid the problem with players making content for each other is that the content they make is going to be used up just as fast. Its going to be even worse though because a mmorpg development staff has more than one person on it working at once... If you have a single player trying to make a dungeon or something like that its going to used up even faster. BUT if people did it anyways then its really the entire population working together so overall content would get added fast enough.
This is actually what mmorpgs devs were going to try next according to a report on a meeting they had recently, but I am almost certain it will fail. I think only a few people are going to have the patience to add any amount of content and it won't be enough to make a difference. I could be wrong though...
horrid the respect thing didn't have to come from a real person though, people have kind of imprints of being appreciated when they were children that means you can play a one player game and feel like you are working towards a goal or feeling of self respect.
You and papa are pretty much talking about the same thing with the social content so...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Papa_Sody
So, for us, grinding through levels 20 to 50 is not something we like to do. We have our high level characters which we play, and we make and remake lower level characters to enjoy the lower level game.
Wait a minute.. this is just the social aspect... I was only supposed to be considering the game aspect. I mean I can call up my girlfriend and talk to her and play a boring game and still have fun
A valid point, maybe. I really couldn't say, I've been married for a long time and there is a huge difference between talking to a girl on the phone and having one sitting 3 feet from you. It is probably true that one of the reasons we have so much fun together and we play so well together is we don't have the limitation of the keyboard to slow our communication. However, the game itself does have some bearing on the fun we have together. Some games suck so badly that even playing together can't make the game fun for us.
Shadowbane was one such game. And not because it was/is PvP based, but because the game mechanics sucked, big time. The user interface was clusy and annoying and the gameplay style was simply not appealing to us.
However, not all of our time in EQ is spent together. I play more in the day than she does. She goes to college during the day, I go at night, so one of us is usually home with the kids. And while the fun I have playing with my online friends may be less than when I play with my wife, I still have fun. Not ALL the time, but enough of the time to have kept me playing for well over 4 years.
Are there periods in which you don't play everquest for a while until they release new content? How many hours around do you play a week? (Just answer if its really little or if your more of an avg mmorpg gamer)
Well, while I know of alot of people who stop playing over and over, but come back every time a new expansion is released, our time has been continuous. We aren't playing right now due to finacial limitations, but I hope to get another good paying job this month to fix that little snafu.
But does the game make socializing more fun than it would be otherwise I wonder. If so then I guess you could claim that a game could be made to maximize this and then claim that the game is perpetually fun. But socializing is just another type of pvp
Funny you should bring that up. My wife, like most other women, has her moods. When she's in a mood, she wont talk to anyone. She becomes very anti-social and just wants to kill shit. However, other times, to her, EQ is just a graphical chat room where she spends alot of time doing nothing but chatting with various people. And she has played games that were mostly socializing games. Underlight it was called, I think. In SW:G she played a dancer. While I was off hunting the wildlands of Tatooine, she was dancing her little butt off in a bar in Mos Eisley.
And when you joke its taking a gamble you might say something stupid but you might say something funny.
Heh, you should spend some time in the Plane of Knowledge in EQ. Alot of people /shout or /ooc (zone wide talking) thngs that are so stupid it's funny
Now, let me try to use logic to show your view, bear with me if it seems convoluted...
Let's start with your original statement: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based
PvP, by your definition, is any time players interact with other players. Using substitution, we then get: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other.
A MMORPG is defined as a game where many plyers can play at any given time, can role play a character and interact with each other. Again, using substitution, we get: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be a MMORPG.
Logically speaking, this works out nicely, doesn't it? The problem does not lie in your logic, and never has. The problem lies in your definitions. There is one point you bring up now that I must disagree with. Socializing is not Player versus Player. Exchanging information, strategy or equipment with other players is not Player versus Player (well, you could argue that if one player is attempting to mislead or cheat the other player, then that is PvP.) Two warriors comparing their total hit points is not Player versus Player. Friendly rivalry, maybe. In my view, these are examples of Player to Player interaction.
Player versus Player interaction, in my view, must be defined as: Any interaction between 2 or more players where 1 or more player is risking the loss of something valuable. Time, money/equipment earned, status. In other words, since there is a risk of loss for 1 or more players involved, any PvP encounter is inherently negative.
Again, lets take your original statement that we modified, above: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other.
Now lets add in the definition of PvP as I see it: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other in a negative way.
Now, this makes the statement work out as such: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be a MMORPG with negative player to player interaction.
And that is something I simply can not agree with.
Well you are saying that some games and some actions playing with your wife still doesn't mean the game will be fun anyways. To me that just says that there are limitations to the effect of even having someone that loves you being right next to you that you play with- probably the best case scenario of how social interaction can help a game - can have on a game.
I know that people that play games like say diablo 2 sometimes have lan parties. Obviously they do it for some reason. Diablo 2 is a perfect example because its content is pretty stretched out. But they still get bored of the game. I think that basically every accomplishment you can make in a game, if it would have been otherwise trite to you and only been marginally fun, then it will be more fun with other people there - right there next to you that is. In my experience the effect of hanging out with people just in the game is nowhere near as powerful, unless you are supporting them somehow which depends on them still not being bored.
But if something is not an accomplishment at all to the back of your mind, the part you cannot fool, it wont be fun at all and no amount of friends can fix this. Look at all pretty much all mmorpgs. Every one of them seems to have a place where they just hang out and talk to each other rather than do anything in the game. In fact the "planes of knowledge" you mentioned in eq sound like this. In Neocron it was plaza 1. In AO it was Newland/Tir whompas/dunno what for omni. In UO it was the banks. Why would people choose to sit there and just talk to each other rather than go play the game with each other... Could it be because everyone is pretty much bored of the games activities... Maybe people playing together get bored just a little bit slower than people playing apart. If you hang out in a single place like this and just chat with others most of the time, can you really claim that the game you are playing is continually fun? Obviously not or you would be playing and chatting. This is why I am looking at the game seperately.
You say that EQ uses time sinks to slow people down. When you play by yourself and run into these, are you claiming that you are having fun? You refer to mid lvl leveling as "grinding" obviously you do not particuarly enjoy it that much - and thats even when you are playing with your wife. I think that these things pretty much eliminate EQ from the category of continually (without break) fun. And I think that without these sinks and stretching of content, you would progress through and have accomplished everything in the game a long time ago.
You are mixing up my argument with things I am saying now. I was just pointing out that social interaction (which my argument is ignoring because it doesn't effect the fun of the game to a signifigant degree) is just another form of pvp as I have described. I was trying to make it ever more clear that pvp is not inherently bad.
I think something that people here should realize, is that setbacks, slowdow, wait times, or content stretching is needed no matter what to keep players from doing everything in the game and being totally done with it. All of these things usually remove fun from the game to some degree and are negative. Negative but nessecary because without them players would zoom through games rediculously fast. Slowdowns and content stretching remove fun to the degree which they are used. Stopping altogether by making a player wait (for death impairment or traveling) completely removes fun while it is in effect. Setbacks USUALLY are a burst of anger. But they don't HAVE to be. They are the only way of slowing down a player that can have little or no bad effect on the player. And the way they can do that is for the player to be prepared for the possibility of the setback ahead of time.
Think about it... The perfect example of this is in sports. When you go out there you want to win, but if you lose you can handle it because you prepare for the possibillity ahead of time. And the faster you can get back in the game and be working towards winning again the faster you forget about it.
Or in terms of punishing a child. If you set a rule and the penalty for breaking it is a set punishment, then the child will not go beserk and pound tables etc because it happens- he knew to expect it ahead of time.
Or this way... In Neocron the more antipk type players would try out pvp by dueling. They would both go somewhere and fight each other. The only difference between this and pk that they claimed to hate so much is that both participants are mentally prepared for the possibillity of dieing. In the case of the random pkers, they are ready to be attacked 24/7 no matter where they go so they are always ready for the possibillity - so being randomly fought even killed doesn't bother them and they tell "carebears to stop whining" because they know that when they are randomly attacked its not a big deal.
So basically there is one type of setback which doesn't have to be that negative to a player, or at least be far less so (even if other types are drawn out over time to prevent seeing this) and that is an immediate quick setback when the player was prepared ahead of time for it to happen.
And the only reason a player would face a setback when he knew about it is for a chance at greater gains, and the only entity which a player would not size up and decide he either can or cannot beat it is another randomly chosen player. Therefore pvp CAN BE the most effective way to slow down a player from consuming all the content without killing the fun.
Note that if the player is randomly killed, or for that matter is even forced into a fight he doesn't want to participate in because he knows he will lose then the setback WILL be really negative. The difference is all in the design of the game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Originally posted by ianubisi Any way you slice it, fun is not rooted in logic. Since I do not enjoy PvP, no form of PvP can be fun. That's not to say you don't make any compelling arguments, but the premise of your subject starts on the wrong foot.
Good statement, I agree. Sometimes I like PvP, sometimes I don't. What it boils down to is whether or not the PvP battles are roleplayed or if it's just all out war and who can be the last one standing. I can play Real Time Stratedgy games if I wanted that type of gaming experience. I play MMORPGs to roleplay my character and see my character develop skills and treasure, etc. DAoC was fun because there was some roleplaying in the realm wars (at first). I Star Wars Galaxies, there are always some Roleplayed PVP battles going on, and it is alot of fun. I guess players find ways to make their own fun, especially when game content no longer does it for them. I mentioned once about how SWG has such good opportunity for player based quests. Well, the PvP aspect of the game goes right along with this, PVP can be alot of funfor me if it's organized and done for a reason suitable with the Star Wars background and story. A gathering of Imperial and Rebel armies on a battlefield just to see who can come out victorious is not my thing.
Tymora are you saying that if you never had any chance of winning pvp would still be fun if it could be roleplayed... IE Some indestructable army appears according to the story and kills you in one hit, making you lose all of your equipment. Obviously that is not the only thing pvp boils down to. And fun can easily be described with logic and science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Kriminal what you gotta realize with the people that dont like pvp is that its probible their lives are so sad that they cant take a death in the game because the game is all they have....I dont mind a lil pve in a game but I just cant see how you die...I did a lil pve as a noobie back in the day and wtf all u gotta do is run off the screen and heal up and ur fine. We are never gonna change their views on pvp so we should just stop trying. U can only convert a non pvper to pvper....u can NEVER convert a pvper to non pvper. think about it
Yeah thats true actually I have seen plenty of people go from anti pk to liking pvp, most of who I helped in a clan that I made to train new players for pvp. But I have never seen a pk player go to anti pk. Maybe to getting bored of pvp in some games but never to like vehemently anti pk...
It's like a higher state of understanding, I learned pvp in neocron so I could go to shadowbane or any other pvp game and be 100% ready to be attacked at any moment and immediately find out where the dangerous areas were so I wouldn't go so crazy over it happening that I would spam the forums etc. I'd just accept it as part of the game unless I was being forced to fight people I had no chance against. This points to that mmorpg consumers will eventually evolve into mostly pvpers....
Good point I never realized that...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Originally posted by Kriminal99 Tymora are you saying that if you never had any chance of winning pvp would still be fun if it could be roleplayed... IE Some indestructable army appears according to the story and kills you in one hit, making you lose all of your equipment. Obviously that is not the only thing pvp boils down to. And fun can easily be described with logic and science.
I've heard that in Horizons, in the Roleplaying Shard such as Expanse, it is possible for the AI (Withering Aegis) to win. Now I know this is not a PvP game, but players still face death and defeat against the opposing armies, does that make the battle less fun? I fought in DAoC in the battelfields and in Castle seiges with a level 25 character, knowing that I would be killed repeatedly. But the PvP battles were for a purpose that went along with the game story. There were rewards for everyone, even those who did not participate. It's not like what MEO is looking to be like. They say there is PvP, but you can't play an evil race like Orcs and Goblins? So who will the PvP be against? Hobbits fighting Elves? Alright, you can argue that there are "good" Hobbits and "bad" Hobbits, or whatever, but this is NOT how Tolkein described his Middle Earth, and Turbine is already twisting the poor man's writing and making it into something different, so that it is more suitable to MMORPG players. What I am trying to say is that different types of games will be more suitable to different types of players. I personally, enjoy games that do have PvP in them, even if I do not regularly participate in it, it often makes the game world feel more realistic to me. There are fundamental things that go along with PvP that could make it so much more fun, instead of just randomly choosing to fight against another group of players to see who is most powerful. I like the idea in Horizons - lots of good ideas in Horizons, but not much implementation of them There is one overall evil in the world of Istaria, the Withering Aegis, and ALL players must unite to be victorious. Now that is something different and it could be fun. In Dark and Light, a fantasy-based MMORPG in early development, will have 2 factions (Dark and Light), but neither are considered "good" or "evil". They each have their own beliefs and fight for them. This could make for some fun PvP, but as I said before, if it's mindless battling, with not rewards and no meaning, for me it would be no fun. These are my opinions, not what I think games should be like or what the standard should be. Especially since my attitude towards these types of games tends to be different than most players. And on one final note: I know these are just video games. Whoever in their pathetic little minds think that what happens in them in any way reflects or carries over into my RL, well they must be the ones that need to get a grip. This should all be good fun, with good debates like this and people sharing their opinoins and ideas. It's not really necessary to make accusations about others when you know nothing about them . . . . (and I'm not talking about you, Krim, I like your posts)
Tymora the reward is pvp itself. The reward is looting the body that you just took. The only reward a good pvp game should have is these two aspects...or maybe the eventual taking over a city or something to that nature...
Originally posted by TMcC Tymora the reward is pvp itself. The reward is looting the body that you just took. The only reward a good pvp game should have is these two aspects...or maybe the eventual taking over a city or something to that nature...
I like a good organised pvp game like DAoC has.Fight for your realm and die for it sort of thing.
But as far as i am concerned looting in pvp is just for the lazy who rather go kill folks that spent hours or days getting stuff then working for it.
It is also a concept that most mmorpg are running away from and glad to hear it too.UO had it and it caused a lot of annoyance and was a serious factor in losing a lot of new players(not rumours in 2000 a CSR from origin actually stated that).Thus they created 2 worlds for ppl to continue in the old way of unrestricted pvp and the new world with no pvp.
Guess what happened the old world became a ghost town and those who do nothing but rob others of their hard earned stuff had no one to rob from but themselves.
Most moved to trammel new world.
Shadowbane took the challenge of doing same but has not gotten a lot of folks into it.
Bottom line is many(i dare say majority of folks) want no grief pvp or none at all..None at all probabaly explains EQ success,non grief explains DAoC success.
There is a home for those that yearn for that old way of pvp and its called shadowbane and i think people who love that style should go there and help develop the game rather then bash it.
Sitting and moaning for a new unrestricted pvp mmorpg to come out does not help your course.
Why?many said shadowbane will do poorly because its adopting that sytle of pvp that is not liked by a vast majority.They took the risk and made the game .One would think people that loved unrestricted pvp would flock there and support the game and make a statement that this type of pvp is still love by very many.Did not happen people started to moan about the game and it did not do so well.
So after this happening how many companies do you think will risk their company money on this type of games again?
Hercules UO was so popular for so long because of its pvp. The majority of players dint move to trammel, the fact of the matter is that players in felluca just quit because of trammel and the trammelike patches that followed in the next couple years. Everybody I knew that played oldschool UO quit for these reasons....I get the feeling you dislike pvp and dont participate in it at all. Thats fine but if pvp wasnt important take a look at the amount of posts on this topic. Theres a ton of players out there waiting for a good pvp game and there are a few on the way. I feel Shadowbane wasnt a big success cuz of the lag, hacking and bugs.
Originally posted by TMcC Hercules UO was so popular for so long because of its pvp. The majority of players dint move to trammel, the fact of the matter is that players in felluca just quit because of trammel and the trammelike patches that followed in the next couple years. Everybody I knew that played oldschool UO quit for these reasons....I get the feeling you dislike pvp and dont participate in it at all. Thats fine but if pvp wasnt important take a look at the amount of posts on this topic. Theres a ton of players out there waiting for a good pvp game and there are a few on the way. I feel Shadowbane wasnt a big success cuz of the lag, hacking and bugs.
UO population in 2000 was 100,000.I know that for a fact because I was there when it was announced.There is a survey which was done a few months ago(older members would remember the link and back me up .We talked about it for over a week) and it stated UO had about 200,000 customers in 2003!!
Now that shows a 100 percent rise in accounts from late1999/early 2000(pre trammel) to 2003.
Which is amazing for a game thats been around as long as it was(i was shocked it had that many in there still).
Also pre 1999 what other mmorpg would you have to play?M59 and thats it.We had no chioces of new games before then.When EQ and AC came out we had a choice but before that nada.
So the fact UO actually gained customers from a time period it had no competition at all to 2003 when it had a lot most mean something.
As for the number of posts.Well sorry no offence but i think old school UO players seems to have spent the last 5 years doing nothing but going around trolling on boards which i think its sad.
Others have actually been playing games.Whenever you see me absent from this boards for a long period its because i am actually having fun in some game rather then moan for years.
Shadowbane had loads of bugs,hacking ,lag well i see you were not there in 1997 when UO launched lol.Hacks man it was rampant as heck.Money duping was common place for years!Lag excuse me we could hardly move and we got warped all over the place.Same happened in EQ.But if you stick with the game it gets better.
UO did,EQ did.AO did,SWG did.So why would shadowbane not get better.
Kriminal what you gotta realize with the people that dont like pvp is that its probible their lives are so sad that they cant take a death in the game because the game is all they have....I dont mind a lil pve in a game but I just cant see how you die...
Why do you think you have to die in a game for it to be fun?
And why does a persons real life have to be boring for them to not want to die in a game?
What is wrong with not dieing in a game. That is what I strive for in real life. I have been in the military and I have been in combat. I didn't want to die then either...
To tell you the truth, I would like to see an MMORPG game come out where you only get to die once. Then start a new character. Or maybe each person gets 3 deaths.
With 3 deaths I think the game may end up a bit mor realistic. In real life, people get old and retire from the adventurous life and settle down to doing things like crafting and whatnot. Well, in a game with 3 deaths per character, players would get their 2 deaths and then settle down and quit putting such a large risk in their lives. Maybe start crafting, or start adventuring in an area that is deemed a bit more safe.
Anyway, these are just ideas. I just wonder why guys who argue for one side or another always have to bring people's real lives into it. Sure, there may be people who do nothing but live the game, and I feel sorry for those people. But they are not PK'rs or not, they are the people who type the slash command in EQ that shows how long you have played your character and it says something like 100 days. Those are the people who may be spending a bit too much time playing.
On another note, it is possible the people who don't want to die in a game are the ones who have lives. The people who play the game 10 hours a day, so they can have the best PK charcater on the server are the ones who need to quit playing so much and get a real life.
I am married and have 2 kids. I spend a lot of time with my family. I have an XBox, air hockey table (real arcade style, not a toy), foosball table, bar, professional dart board, ping pong table, 56" HDTV, Home Theatre, hand guns, bow, piano, kegerator, membership to a health club, I scuba dive, etc. I have many friends at my house almost every single day. My income is in the 6 digits. When you have a life that compares to mine, you let me know.
I may only play an MMORPG for a few hours a week. Do you think I want to spend that time defending myself from guys that are twice my level trying to kill me? Or spend that time running from my spawn point back to where I was when I got killed? Not really. In the amount of time that I play, I will never use up all of the content in a game (I am not using it 10x faster than it was created Kriminal). In fact, the year or so I played EQ, my highest character was only about 35th level and I enjoyed it. I even played that character on Rallos Zek (the PK server). Ganking and griefing never really got out of hand on that server, I don't know why, at least not while I was playing.
In UO, which I played for about 6 months from the day of release, I owned a small house and never GrandMastered any skills. Only went in maybe 2 of the dungeons. I really enjoyed the time I did play though.
The bottom line is, everybody is different and everybody enjoys the game differently. But trying to put a psychiatric spin on the person just because of theie play-style is silly.
Ok dude you stated in ur post about bringin real life topics to the table in these posts and how its not right...and then you proceded to talk about your real life throughout your post. All im stating is that if i played a game without pvp i wouldnt die and i dont think thats fun. And dude I am a very active individual in sports and exercise so dont attempt to belittle me with "comparing" lives as you put it. I love my life and I got tons of things goin on but i also love a good pvp mmorpg. So next time you put all that thought and time into a post dont contradict yourself.
Sorry tamora I thought you meant that roleplaying was the ONLY thing that made pvp fun or not...
I agree its an important factor, because the more believable the world is the more meaningful everything you do in it is.
Originally posted by hercules I like a good organised pvp game like DAoC has.Fight for your realm and die for it sort of thing. But as far as i am concerned looting in pvp is just for the lazy who rather go kill folks that spent hours or days getting stuff then working for it.
You know, part of this is that no game should have it where you have to camp a spawn for hours at a time just for a crack at a mob... But anyways about shadowbane I really like even grief pvp (cause its not grief to me I am always prepared and up for the challenge) but hell there has to be a way for me to exert some type of skills... Shadowbane is a TURN BASED pvp game... WTF is up with that...
If a game is going to be pvp based then it has to have all kinds of ways for players to use different tactics strategies and maybe even twitch skills whatever SOMETHING so that you never know what to expect. Shadowbane although being better than some other turn based games doesn't provide enough room for rl skills and experience to effect the outcome of battle...
@ Tasky I can see that being forced over and over again to fight someone you cannot beat when you don't want to is not fun. Anyways using up the content doesn't really mean you have to get to lvl 50 or whatever is the highest once with every class it just means it has to get somewhat repetitive. EQ is obviously a game with a lot of repetiveness in it and alot of time sinks, my argument is that these games get boring way before someone could do everything in them. Maybe they never get to the point where you could never have fun in them again, but they definitely have periods where they are not fun in between.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
I was just trying to show an example the opposite of your conjecture.
It was not meant as a flame or attack.
My point was that you can't make a judgement on a person's life because of their play style or their likes/dislikes. Your post was that people who don't want to die lead boring lives. My counter argument was that people with exciting and active lives do not have time for PvP. But I am not saying that people who like PvP don't have good lives too. To each his own. I just wish people would stop bashing each other because one is in favor of PvP and one is not. It isn't like one of us owns a Mac and the other a PC. If that were the case, then fists would fly!
Originally posted by TMcC Tymora the reward is pvp itself. The reward is looting the body that you just took. The only reward a good pvp game should have is these two aspects...or maybe the eventual taking over a city or something to that nature...
Ok, now I see what you're getting at. The game you'll be most interested in is called Guild Wars. It is not a MMORPG, although it sounds like one. It's exaclty about what you just described.
Dunno about EQ been boring over 3 million people have played EQ and it still has 500,000 accounts so it must bew fun for someone.
Fact is everyone has what they love.You like no hold bars pvp then go for it.I know the market is limited in games for this type of pvp which i think is a bit unfair.But there must be a reason developers/company shy away from it.
Last company to make no hold bars pvp was shadowbane and it did not do so well.However i hope they make such a game for those intrested in this type of pvp.
So let me conclude everyone likes something(we are all indviduals) else.
Some like quest and content,some like war like pvp with no grief(ok looting or whatever you wanna call it) some like no hold bars pvp.
It is not the old days where there was little choice of games and we were all stuck in UO having to live with an aspect of the game we loved or hated.
There are chioces now.I remember when shadowbane came out some folks were spamming something like " this dude has been chain killing me for last 30 mins and looted me and he is way higher then me that start a week ago".
I was first to always say dude this is what the game is about if not your style go try something else.
I myself did not last 4 weeks in shadowbane(i bought it because i was curious).I knew i did not like the way pvp was handled there but never complained or got anger because i died/looted as i knew it was gonna be like that.
Personally i wish those that like no hold bars pvp would have supported the game.Even if it sucks but supported it temporarily.
This will encourge other companies to make such trype of no hold bars pvp games.But by letting the game do poorly it sends the wrong message to the accountants who are what matters first nowadays.
If a game is going to be pvp based then it has to have all kinds of ways for players to use different tactics strategies and maybe even twitch skills whatever SOMETHING so that you never know what to expect. Shadowbane although being better than some other turn based games doesn't provide enough room for rl skills and experience to effect the outcome of battle...
I agree with you here. In a battle against someone your level in Shadowbane, it comes down to who got in the first hit or spell off. This is part f why so mny carebear players hate it, believe it or not. Because it doesn't matter how good you are at a game, the guy who sneaks up on you and gets the first shot in is usually the one who wins. And this is where greifing becomes a real problem.
Tasky I can see that being forced over and over again to fight someone you cannot beat when you don't want to is not fun.
Wow, it is kinda scary, i think you and I might be starting to see each others side of this
Anyways using up the content doesn't really mean you have to get to lvl 50 or whatever is the highest once with every class it just means it has to get somewhat repetitive. EQ is obviously a game with a lot of repetiveness in it and alot of time sinks, my argument is that these games get boring way before someone could do everything in them. Maybe they never get to the point where you could never have fun in them again, but they definitely have periods where they are not fun in between.
I again agree with you. And I myself do like some PvP if it is fair, but many games have had a hard time making it that way. One game that is pure PvP and fun to play is World War 2 online, I played the free month of that. If they could come up with a realistic way to get foot soldiers to combat, it would be a great game amd I would would still be playing it today.
Kriminal, I can also see your side that a game with good PvP can be fun for almost everyone (can never say everyone). The problem is that no one has figured out how to make it that way, and it may not be possible. There will always be the people who push the rules and the game engine to the limit just to make life a bit more difficult for other players. That is the real problem with games that include PvP. There must be a way to control the people who are TRYING to ruin other peoples fun.
And even with good PvP, a game is going to get boring... There is no way to keep that from happening eventually.
so was just checking out the site and decided to check the boards... started reading this one (yea all 17 pages) and decided i had to create an account just so i can put my two cents in..
Since founding your argument based on logic, i will point out one of the many logical flaws in your argument -
"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."
Now here comes a boring rule in a logical argument
Try avoid using words like always, never, only, they are Universal Quantifiers, and must prove ALL instances ever to be valid and true.
In stating that the only way and MMORPG can be sustained is being based on PVP, you discount the possibility of there being a current game out there or one EVER to come out without PVP being able to last. Not only are there games out currently that do not contain PVP, but i am sure there will be more in the future that will be "cost-effective" for companies and not contain pvp elements.
Preemptive: If you are going to post here against this argument please keep the following things in mind because they have already been said and do not make sense or address the argument:
"I don't like pvp, I was griefed once etc." PVP encompasses a large range of possible interactions, only a few of which you could have experienced. Just because the few you have experienced were bad doesn't mean all would be. For that matter the only difference between PVE and PVP to a player is that in PVE he consistently wins - so if you like PVE there is a example of one right there. (another person designed the mobs to fight you yet let you consistently win)
Why is "I don't like pvp, I was griefed once etc" not a valid argument. It states a fact, "I don't like pvp," and backs it up with a reason, "I was griefed once." Follow the rules of logic, makes perfect sense, and is a perfectly viable reason why one would not like to play a game centered around it. When some one purchases a game, and remember we are talking about cost-effectiveness here, not really enjoyment, one looks to buy a game centered around there likes and dislikes. If someone dislikes a game because they were griefed once, then they will buy the game that caters to there interests, PVE. And seeing how its been stated numerous times in this thread, we all know "carebear" servers are the most populated ones, so wouldn't making a game centered on the "carebears" be the most cost-effective way to go?
"Fun is not rooted in logic"
FYI - Although fun MIGHT be rooted in logic, it is far from universal. Just because someone finds something fun, dose'nt mean all people will find something fun. I find enjoyment in playing pool, my fiancee hates it, I think PVP is fun, my fiancee hates it.. The whole last argument doesn't even make sense to me. Its my belief (thats how to avoid universalizing your argument) that people know what is fun for them, and if they say they are not having fun, then that is probably what they are actually feeling.
just a little rant and dont mind the grammar or spelling
The reason why splitting the world made the PK'rs angry was because they could no longer victimize the poeple who did not want to get ganked and griefed. They had to fight other PK'rs, which could result in them losing.
I quit UO before the world was ever split. I used to avoid the Gankers by hunting in remote areas. I never ventured in to the dungeons much, because that was surefire way to get ganked by gangs of Griefers.
The reason that UOs pkers started bitchin about trammel was because it was so easy to go back and forth. They should of made a stiff tole on that travel but never did to my knowledge{i quit a while back}. Ofcourse the majority of trammel players dint want to get pked or take part in pvp. Trammel forced easy access for trading and buying....the entire situation was just sorry. Theiving in oldschool UO was awesome but trammel declined this. So the game made changes{trammel and trammelike patches} for the players that bitched about the game in felluca. To me this shows that atleast more than half the players in UO accepted trammel. So it comes down to cash....trammel brought more accounts which disgusts me but thats beside the point. This topic boils down and its as simple as that. But some recent posts state that every game gets boring....no my freind you are wrong...old school UO never got old. I could play that game for 10 hours a day for a year and it wouldn get old. Nonstop pve gets boring if you ask me cuz u know ur outcome before stepping into anything....ur gonna beat the monster and get his loot...blah blah blah blah.
Originally posted by macattack wow....... so was just checking out the site and decided to check the boards... started reading this one (yea all 17 pages) and decided i had to create an account just so i can put my two cents in.. Since founding your argument based on logic, i will point out one of the many logical flaws in your argument - "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." Now here comes a boring rule in a logical argument Try avoid using words like always, never, only, they are Universal Quantifiers, and must prove ALL instances ever to be valid and true. In stating that the only way and MMORPG can be sustained is being based on PVP, you discount the possibility of there being a current game out there or one EVER to come out without PVP being able to last. Not only are there games out currently that do not contain PVP, but i am sure there will be more in the future that will be "cost-effective" for companies and not contain pvp elements. Preemptive: If you are going to post here against this argument please keep the following things in mind because they have already been said and do not make sense or address the argument: "I don't like pvp, I was griefed once etc." PVP encompasses a large range of possible interactions, only a few of which you could have experienced. Just because the few you have experienced were bad doesn't mean all would be. For that matter the only difference between PVE and PVP to a player is that in PVE he consistently wins - so if you like PVE there is a example of one right there. (another person designed the mobs to fight you yet let you consistently win) Why is "I don't like pvp, I was griefed once etc" not a valid argument. It states a fact, "I don't like pvp," and backs it up with a reason, "I was griefed once." Follow the rules of logic, makes perfect sense, and is a perfectly viable reason why one would not like to play a game centered around it. When some one purchases a game, and remember we are talking about cost-effectiveness here, not really enjoyment, one looks to buy a game centered around there likes and dislikes. If someone dislikes a game because they were griefed once, then they will buy the game that caters to there interests, PVE. And seeing how its been stated numerous times in this thread, we all know "carebear" servers are the most populated ones, so wouldn't making a game centered on the "carebears" be the most cost-effective way to go? "Fun is not rooted in logic" FYI - Although fun MIGHT be rooted in logic, it is far from universal. Just because someone finds something fun, dose'nt mean all people will find something fun. I find enjoyment in playing pool, my fiancee hates it, I think PVP is fun, my fiancee hates it.. The whole last argument doesn't even make sense to me. Its my belief (thats how to avoid universalizing your argument) that people know what is fun for them, and if they say they are not having fun, then that is probably what they are actually feeling. just a little rant and dont mind the grammar or spelling
Actually the premises do establish as the only possible way, in case you didnt read them. It doesn't say anything about success or lasting its talking about continual fun. (as in without break)
"I don't like pvp I was griefed once" is not a valid argument because (thought it was clear enough there) because pvp is a word used to refer to a wide possible range of interactions, and just because someone experienced one or two and didn't like it doesn't mean that all wouldn't be fun. Its called generalization.
No if a game is fun pvp based or not word would get around that it is good and pvp is painless in it. The only reason cost effectiveness is even mentioned in the conclusion is because there is an alternative of having just an obscenely huge staff constantly adding new content to the game without the game having any means of slowing the player down from doing everything. But that would not be cost-effective.
First of all what someone says when you ask them "Do you like pool" could have any number of meanings. For example if they say "no" it could mean everything from "I always lose" to "I could get drunk and lose money betting" to "not right now I wanna hit on that girl" to god knows what. And besides not knowing exactly what the person means, this doesn't tell you what the person is actually feeling. You might be able to make a case for saying a person is not going to lie or not know what they are talking about, and if overall they deem a situation to be bad it provides them with more bad feelings than good.
However where people make claims that are often wrong is when they try to generalize some past experience to ALL experiences of that type. And that is the case here. And as to universality, yes there are some things that cause all humans to have fun and you will learn them in psychology. No person likes to be hated/disliked etc and everyone likes to be loved/respected. These are the base things that twist and turn around to make people's personality and their likes and dislikes. And games deal pretty much directly with these. This is all that is needed to make my argument.
@ TaskyZZ I think that some components of much better pvp have been seen in many different games, for example in DAOC where you can't talk to your enemies. Note how people will see the risk of loosing a pvp match much much higher if the other person is an avid smack talker and usually avoid it. No communication between enemies eliminates this. Different zones where different levels of pvp are allowed are used in some games. Some games don't have levels so anyone can beat anyone no matter how long they have been playing... One thing that has yet to be seen is a handicap for pvper with losing streaks... I think pvp can still come a really long ways.
@hercules the original post isn't about forcing any type of game playing on anyone. The original post is a simple step by step argument that proves something. Not my fault if you don't like it. You are confused if you think there is some huge difference between pvp and just fighting ai controlled mobs that would make this argument impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Originally posted by Kriminal99 Well horrid the problem with players making content for each other is that the content they make is going to be used up just as fast. Its going to be even worse though because a mmorpg development staff has more than one person on it working at once... If you have a single player trying to make a dungeon or something like that its going to used up even faster. BUT if people did it anyways then its really the entire population working together so overall content would get added fast enough. This is actually what mmorpgs devs were going to try next according to a report on a meeting they had recently, but I am almost certain it will fail. I think only a few people are going to have the patience to add any amount of content and it won't be enough to make a difference. I could be wrong though... horrid the respect thing didn't have to come from a real person though, people have kind of imprints of being appreciated when they were children that means you can play a one player game and feel like you are working towards a goal or feeling of self respect.
In your response you have stated that "I am almost certain it will fail". This implies that you recognise it might not.
You have stated that PvP is the only way to have contant fun and told players who have claimed to not like PvP that they have not experienced every form of PvP and hence can't make that claim. You have not experienced every form of PvE and hence you can't claim that it can't provide constant fun as you don't have the experience to make that assesment. Current PvE requires new content to be added by the devs constantly, what happens if the devs work out a way for content to be dynamic and self generating? No current PvP system (that I know of) provides constant fun either.
I would like to see you change your original statement somewhat to reflect that a PvP BASED game would offer the BEST way to provide a cost effective fun game for the majority of gamers.
Have to admit that you didn't give people much room to move with your premises, is very hard to argue (argue is the wrong word, I'm not trying to argue just offer a different view point) against something so well designed to not give people room to expand on things.
Comments
Well horrid the problem with players making content for each other is that the content they make is going to be used up just as fast. Its going to be even worse though because a mmorpg development staff has more than one person on it working at once... If you have a single player trying to make a dungeon or something like that its going to used up even faster. BUT if people did it anyways then its really the entire population working together so overall content would get added fast enough.
This is actually what mmorpgs devs were going to try next according to a report on a meeting they had recently, but I am almost certain it will fail. I think only a few people are going to have the patience to add any amount of content and it won't be enough to make a difference. I could be wrong though...
horrid the respect thing didn't have to come from a real person though, people have kind of imprints of being appreciated when they were children that means you can play a one player game and feel like you are working towards a goal or feeling of self respect.
You and papa are pretty much talking about the same thing with the social content so...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Papa_Sody
So, for us, grinding through levels 20 to 50 is not something we like to do. We have our high level characters which we play, and we make and remake lower level characters to enjoy the lower level game.
Wait a minute.. this is just the social aspect... I was only supposed to be considering the game aspect. I mean I can call up my girlfriend and talk to her and play a boring game and still have fun
A valid point, maybe. I really couldn't say, I've been married for a long time and there is a huge difference between talking to a girl on the phone and having one sitting 3 feet from you. It is probably true that one of the reasons we have so much fun together and we play so well together is we don't have the limitation of the keyboard to slow our communication. However, the game itself does have some bearing on the fun we have together. Some games suck so badly that even playing together can't make the game fun for us.
Shadowbane was one such game. And not because it was/is PvP based, but because the game mechanics sucked, big time. The user interface was clusy and annoying and the gameplay style was simply not appealing to us.
However, not all of our time in EQ is spent together. I play more in the day than she does. She goes to college during the day, I go at night, so one of us is usually home with the kids. And while the fun I have playing with my online friends may be less than when I play with my wife, I still have fun. Not ALL the time, but enough of the time to have kept me playing for well over 4 years.
Are there periods in which you don't play everquest for a while until they release new content? How many hours around do you play a week? (Just answer if its really little or if your more of an avg mmorpg gamer)
Well, while I know of alot of people who stop playing over and over, but come back every time a new expansion is released, our time has been continuous. We aren't playing right now due to finacial limitations, but I hope to get another good paying job this month to fix that little snafu.
But does the game make socializing more fun than it would be otherwise I wonder. If so then I guess you could claim that a game could be made to maximize this and then claim that the game is perpetually fun. But socializing is just another type of pvp
Funny you should bring that up. My wife, like most other women, has her moods. When she's in a mood, she wont talk to anyone. She becomes very anti-social and just wants to kill shit. However, other times, to her, EQ is just a graphical chat room where she spends alot of time doing nothing but chatting with various people. And she has played games that were mostly socializing games. Underlight it was called, I think. In SW:G she played a dancer. While I was off hunting the wildlands of Tatooine, she was dancing her little butt off in a bar in Mos Eisley.
And when you joke its taking a gamble you might say something stupid but you might say something funny.
Heh, you should spend some time in the Plane of Knowledge in EQ. Alot of people /shout or /ooc (zone wide talking) thngs that are so stupid it's funny
Now, let me try to use logic to show your view, bear with me if it seems convoluted...
Let's start with your original statement: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based
PvP, by your definition, is any time players interact with other players. Using substitution, we then get: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other.
A MMORPG is defined as a game where many plyers can play at any given time, can role play a character and interact with each other. Again, using substitution, we get: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be a MMORPG.
Logically speaking, this works out nicely, doesn't it? The problem does not lie in your logic, and never has. The problem lies in your definitions. There is one point you bring up now that I must disagree with. Socializing is not Player versus Player. Exchanging information, strategy or equipment with other players is not Player versus Player (well, you could argue that if one player is attempting to mislead or cheat the other player, then that is PvP.) Two warriors comparing their total hit points is not Player versus Player. Friendly rivalry, maybe. In my view, these are examples of Player to Player interaction.
Player versus Player interaction, in my view, must be defined as: Any interaction between 2 or more players where 1 or more player is risking the loss of something valuable. Time, money/equipment earned, status. In other words, since there is a risk of loss for 1 or more players involved, any PvP encounter is inherently negative.
Again, lets take your original statement that we modified, above: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other.
Now lets add in the definition of PvP as I see it: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must have ways for players to interact with each other in a negative way.
Now, this makes the statement work out as such: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be a MMORPG with negative player to player interaction.
And that is something I simply can not agree with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you are saying that some games and some actions playing with your wife still doesn't mean the game will be fun anyways. To me that just says that there are limitations to the effect of even having someone that loves you being right next to you that you play with- probably the best case scenario of how social interaction can help a game - can have on a game.
I know that people that play games like say diablo 2 sometimes have lan parties. Obviously they do it for some reason. Diablo 2 is a perfect example because its content is pretty stretched out. But they still get bored of the game. I think that basically every accomplishment you can make in a game, if it would have been otherwise trite to you and only been marginally fun, then it will be more fun with other people there - right there next to you that is. In my experience the effect of hanging out with people just in the game is nowhere near as powerful, unless you are supporting them somehow which depends on them still not being bored.
But if something is not an accomplishment at all to the back of your mind, the part you cannot fool, it wont be fun at all and no amount of friends can fix this. Look at all pretty much all mmorpgs. Every one of them seems to have a place where they just hang out and talk to each other rather than do anything in the game. In fact the "planes of knowledge" you mentioned in eq sound like this. In Neocron it was plaza 1. In AO it was Newland/Tir whompas/dunno what for omni. In UO it was the banks. Why would people choose to sit there and just talk to each other rather than go play the game with each other... Could it be because everyone is pretty much bored of the games activities... Maybe people playing together get bored just a little bit slower than people playing apart. If you hang out in a single place like this and just chat with others most of the time, can you really claim that the game you are playing is continually fun? Obviously not or you would be playing and chatting. This is why I am looking at the game seperately.
You say that EQ uses time sinks to slow people down. When you play by yourself and run into these, are you claiming that you are having fun? You refer to mid lvl leveling as "grinding" obviously you do not particuarly enjoy it that much - and thats even when you are playing with your wife. I think that these things pretty much eliminate EQ from the category of continually (without break) fun. And I think that without these sinks and stretching of content, you would progress through and have accomplished everything in the game a long time ago.
You are mixing up my argument with things I am saying now. I was just pointing out that social interaction (which my argument is ignoring because it doesn't effect the fun of the game to a signifigant degree) is just another form of pvp as I have described. I was trying to make it ever more clear that pvp is not inherently bad.
I think something that people here should realize, is that setbacks, slowdow, wait times, or content stretching is needed no matter what to keep players from doing everything in the game and being totally done with it. All of these things usually remove fun from the game to some degree and are negative. Negative but nessecary because without them players would zoom through games rediculously fast. Slowdowns and content stretching remove fun to the degree which they are used. Stopping altogether by making a player wait (for death impairment or traveling) completely removes fun while it is in effect. Setbacks USUALLY are a burst of anger. But they don't HAVE to be. They are the only way of slowing down a player that can have little or no bad effect on the player. And the way they can do that is for the player to be prepared for the possibility of the setback ahead of time.
Think about it... The perfect example of this is in sports. When you go out there you want to win, but if you lose you can handle it because you prepare for the possibillity ahead of time. And the faster you can get back in the game and be working towards winning again the faster you forget about it.
Or in terms of punishing a child. If you set a rule and the penalty for breaking it is a set punishment, then the child will not go beserk and pound tables etc because it happens- he knew to expect it ahead of time.
Or this way... In Neocron the more antipk type players would try out pvp by dueling. They would both go somewhere and fight each other. The only difference between this and pk that they claimed to hate so much is that both participants are mentally prepared for the possibillity of dieing. In the case of the random pkers, they are ready to be attacked 24/7 no matter where they go so they are always ready for the possibillity - so being randomly fought even killed doesn't bother them and they tell "carebears to stop whining" because they know that when they are randomly attacked its not a big deal.
So basically there is one type of setback which doesn't have to be that negative to a player, or at least be far less so (even if other types are drawn out over time to prevent seeing this) and that is an immediate quick setback when the player was prepared ahead of time for it to happen.
And the only reason a player would face a setback when he knew about it is for a chance at greater gains, and the only entity which a player would not size up and decide he either can or cannot beat it is another randomly chosen player. Therefore pvp CAN BE the most effective way to slow down a player from consuming all the content without killing the fun.
Note that if the player is randomly killed, or for that matter is even forced into a fight he doesn't want to participate in because he knows he will lose then the setback WILL be really negative. The difference is all in the design of the game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Yeah thats true actually I have seen plenty of people go from anti pk to liking pvp, most of who I helped in a clan that I made to train new players for pvp. But I have never seen a pk player go to anti pk. Maybe to getting bored of pvp in some games but never to like vehemently anti pk...
It's like a higher state of understanding, I learned pvp in neocron so I could go to shadowbane or any other pvp game and be 100% ready to be attacked at any moment and immediately find out where the dangerous areas were so I wouldn't go so crazy over it happening that I would spam the forums etc. I'd just accept it as part of the game unless I was being forced to fight people I had no chance against. This points to that mmorpg consumers will eventually evolve into mostly pvpers....
Good point I never realized that...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
I like a good organised pvp game like DAoC has.Fight for your realm and die for it sort of thing.
But as far as i am concerned looting in pvp is just for the lazy who rather go kill folks that spent hours or days getting stuff then working for it.
It is also a concept that most mmorpg are running away from and glad to hear it too.UO had it and it caused a lot of annoyance and was a serious factor in losing a lot of new players(not rumours in 2000 a CSR from origin actually stated that).Thus they created 2 worlds for ppl to continue in the old way of unrestricted pvp and the new world with no pvp.
Guess what happened the old world became a ghost town and those who do nothing but rob others of their hard earned stuff had no one to rob from but themselves.
Most moved to trammel new world.
Shadowbane took the challenge of doing same but has not gotten a lot of folks into it.
Bottom line is many(i dare say majority of folks) want no grief pvp or none at all..None at all probabaly explains EQ success,non grief explains DAoC success.
There is a home for those that yearn for that old way of pvp and its called shadowbane and i think people who love that style should go there and help develop the game rather then bash it.
Sitting and moaning for a new unrestricted pvp mmorpg to come out does not help your course.
Why?many said shadowbane will do poorly because its adopting that sytle of pvp that is not liked by a vast majority.They took the risk and made the game .One would think people that loved unrestricted pvp would flock there and support the game and make a statement that this type of pvp is still love by very many.Did not happen people started to moan about the game and it did not do so well.
So after this happening how many companies do you think will risk their company money on this type of games again?
UO population in 2000 was 100,000.I know that for a fact because I was there when it was announced.There is a survey which was done a few months ago(older members would remember the link and back me up .We talked about it for over a week) and it stated UO had about 200,000 customers in 2003!!
Now that shows a 100 percent rise in accounts from late1999/early 2000(pre trammel) to 2003.
Which is amazing for a game thats been around as long as it was(i was shocked it had that many in there still).
Also pre 1999 what other mmorpg would you have to play?M59 and thats it.We had no chioces of new games before then.When EQ and AC came out we had a choice but before that nada.
So the fact UO actually gained customers from a time period it had no competition at all to 2003 when it had a lot most mean something.
As for the number of posts.Well sorry no offence but i think old school UO players seems to have spent the last 5 years doing nothing but going around trolling on boards which i think its sad.
Others have actually been playing games.Whenever you see me absent from this boards for a long period its because i am actually having fun in some game rather then moan for years.
Shadowbane had loads of bugs,hacking ,lag well i see you were not there in 1997 when UO launched lol.Hacks man it was rampant as heck.Money duping was common place for years!Lag excuse me we could hardly move and we got warped all over the place.Same happened in EQ.But if you stick with the game it gets better.
UO did,EQ did.AO did,SWG did.So why would shadowbane not get better.
TMcC said:
Kriminal what you gotta realize with the people that dont like pvp is that its probible their lives are so sad that they cant take a death in the game because the game is all they have....I dont mind a lil pve in a game but I just cant see how you die...
Why do you think you have to die in a game for it to be fun?
And why does a persons real life have to be boring for them to not want to die in a game?
What is wrong with not dieing in a game. That is what I strive for in real life. I have been in the military and I have been in combat. I didn't want to die then either...
To tell you the truth, I would like to see an MMORPG game come out where you only get to die once. Then start a new character. Or maybe each person gets 3 deaths.
With 3 deaths I think the game may end up a bit mor realistic. In real life, people get old and retire from the adventurous life and settle down to doing things like crafting and whatnot. Well, in a game with 3 deaths per character, players would get their 2 deaths and then settle down and quit putting such a large risk in their lives. Maybe start crafting, or start adventuring in an area that is deemed a bit more safe.
Anyway, these are just ideas. I just wonder why guys who argue for one side or another always have to bring people's real lives into it. Sure, there may be people who do nothing but live the game, and I feel sorry for those people. But they are not PK'rs or not, they are the people who type the slash command in EQ that shows how long you have played your character and it says something like 100 days. Those are the people who may be spending a bit too much time playing.
On another note, it is possible the people who don't want to die in a game are the ones who have lives. The people who play the game 10 hours a day, so they can have the best PK charcater on the server are the ones who need to quit playing so much and get a real life.
I am married and have 2 kids. I spend a lot of time with my family. I have an XBox, air hockey table (real arcade style, not a toy), foosball table, bar, professional dart board, ping pong table, 56" HDTV, Home Theatre, hand guns, bow, piano, kegerator, membership to a health club, I scuba dive, etc. I have many friends at my house almost every single day. My income is in the 6 digits. When you have a life that compares to mine, you let me know.
I may only play an MMORPG for a few hours a week. Do you think I want to spend that time defending myself from guys that are twice my level trying to kill me? Or spend that time running from my spawn point back to where I was when I got killed? Not really. In the amount of time that I play, I will never use up all of the content in a game (I am not using it 10x faster than it was created Kriminal). In fact, the year or so I played EQ, my highest character was only about 35th level and I enjoyed it. I even played that character on Rallos Zek (the PK server). Ganking and griefing never really got out of hand on that server, I don't know why, at least not while I was playing.
In UO, which I played for about 6 months from the day of release, I owned a small house and never GrandMastered any skills. Only went in maybe 2 of the dungeons. I really enjoyed the time I did play though.
The bottom line is, everybody is different and everybody enjoys the game differently. But trying to put a psychiatric spin on the person just because of theie play-style is silly.
Sorry tamora I thought you meant that roleplaying was the ONLY thing that made pvp fun or not...
I agree its an important factor, because the more believable the world is the more meaningful everything you do in it is.
You know, part of this is that no game should have it where you have to camp a spawn for hours at a time just for a crack at a mob... But anyways about shadowbane I really like even grief pvp (cause its not grief to me I am always prepared and up for the challenge) but hell there has to be a way for me to exert some type of skills... Shadowbane is a TURN BASED pvp game... WTF is up with that...
If a game is going to be pvp based then it has to have all kinds of ways for players to use different tactics strategies and maybe even twitch skills whatever SOMETHING so that you never know what to expect. Shadowbane although being better than some other turn based games doesn't provide enough room for rl skills and experience to effect the outcome of battle...
@ Tasky I can see that being forced over and over again to fight someone you cannot beat when you don't want to is not fun. Anyways using up the content doesn't really mean you have to get to lvl 50 or whatever is the highest once with every class it just means it has to get somewhat repetitive. EQ is obviously a game with a lot of repetiveness in it and alot of time sinks, my argument is that these games get boring way before someone could do everything in them. Maybe they never get to the point where you could never have fun in them again, but they definitely have periods where they are not fun in between.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
LOL
I was just trying to show an example the opposite of your conjecture.
It was not meant as a flame or attack.
My point was that you can't make a judgement on a person's life because of their play style or their likes/dislikes. Your post was that people who don't want to die lead boring lives. My counter argument was that people with exciting and active lives do not have time for PvP. But I am not saying that people who like PvP don't have good lives too. To each his own. I just wish people would stop bashing each other because one is in favor of PvP and one is not. It isn't like one of us owns a Mac and the other a PC. If that were the case, then fists would fly!
Just a little point-counterpoint for you.
Dunno about EQ been boring over 3 million people have played EQ and it still has 500,000 accounts so it must bew fun for someone.
Fact is everyone has what they love.You like no hold bars pvp then go for it.I know the market is limited in games for this type of pvp which i think is a bit unfair.But there must be a reason developers/company shy away from it.
Last company to make no hold bars pvp was shadowbane and it did not do so well.However i hope they make such a game for those intrested in this type of pvp.
So let me conclude everyone likes something(we are all indviduals) else.
Some like quest and content,some like war like pvp with no grief(ok looting or whatever you wanna call it) some like no hold bars pvp.
It is not the old days where there was little choice of games and we were all stuck in UO having to live with an aspect of the game we loved or hated.
There are chioces now.I remember when shadowbane came out some folks were spamming something like " this dude has been chain killing me for last 30 mins and looted me and he is way higher then me that start a week ago".
I was first to always say dude this is what the game is about if not your style go try something else.
I myself did not last 4 weeks in shadowbane(i bought it because i was curious).I knew i did not like the way pvp was handled there but never complained or got anger because i died/looted as i knew it was gonna be like that.
Personally i wish those that like no hold bars pvp would have supported the game.Even if it sucks but supported it temporarily.
This will encourge other companies to make such trype of no hold bars pvp games.But by letting the game do poorly it sends the wrong message to the accountants who are what matters first nowadays.
If a game is going to be pvp based then it has to have all kinds of ways for players to use different tactics strategies and maybe even twitch skills whatever SOMETHING so that you never know what to expect. Shadowbane although being better than some other turn based games doesn't provide enough room for rl skills and experience to effect the outcome of battle...
I agree with you here. In a battle against someone your level in Shadowbane, it comes down to who got in the first hit or spell off. This is part f why so mny carebear players hate it, believe it or not. Because it doesn't matter how good you are at a game, the guy who sneaks up on you and gets the first shot in is usually the one who wins. And this is where greifing becomes a real problem.
Tasky I can see that being forced over and over again to fight someone you cannot beat when you don't want to is not fun.
Wow, it is kinda scary, i think you and I might be starting to see each others side of this
Anyways using up the content doesn't really mean you have to get to lvl 50 or whatever is the highest once with every class it just means it has to get somewhat repetitive. EQ is obviously a game with a lot of repetiveness in it and alot of time sinks, my argument is that these games get boring way before someone could do everything in them. Maybe they never get to the point where you could never have fun in them again, but they definitely have periods where they are not fun in between.
I again agree with you. And I myself do like some PvP if it is fair, but many games have had a hard time making it that way. One game that is pure PvP and fun to play is World War 2 online, I played the free month of that. If they could come up with a realistic way to get foot soldiers to combat, it would be a great game amd I would would still be playing it today.
Kriminal, I can also see your side that a game with good PvP can be fun for almost everyone (can never say everyone). The problem is that no one has figured out how to make it that way, and it may not be possible. There will always be the people who push the rules and the game engine to the limit just to make life a bit more difficult for other players. That is the real problem with games that include PvP. There must be a way to control the people who are TRYING to ruin other peoples fun.
And even with good PvP, a game is going to get boring... There is no way to keep that from happening eventually.
wow.......
so was just checking out the site and decided to check the boards... started reading this one (yea all 17 pages) and decided i had to create an account just so i can put my two cents in..
Since founding your argument based on logic, i will point out one of the many logical flaws in your argument -
"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."
Now here comes a boring rule in a logical argument
Try avoid using words like always, never, only, they are Universal Quantifiers, and must prove ALL instances ever to be valid and true.
In stating that the only way and MMORPG can be sustained is being based on PVP, you discount the possibility of there being a current game out there or one EVER to come out without PVP being able to last. Not only are there games out currently that do not contain PVP, but i am sure there will be more in the future that will be "cost-effective" for companies and not contain pvp elements.
Preemptive: If you are going to post here against this argument please keep the following things in mind because they have already been said and do not make sense or address the argument:
"I don't like pvp, I was griefed once etc." PVP encompasses a large range of possible interactions, only a few of which you could have experienced. Just because the few you have experienced were bad doesn't mean all would be. For that matter the only difference between PVE and PVP to a player is that in PVE he consistently wins - so if you like PVE there is a example of one right there. (another person designed the mobs to fight you yet let you consistently win)
Why is "I don't like pvp, I was griefed once etc" not a valid argument. It states a fact, "I don't like pvp," and backs it up with a reason, "I was griefed once." Follow the rules of logic, makes perfect sense, and is a perfectly viable reason why one would not like to play a game centered around it. When some one purchases a game, and remember we are talking about cost-effectiveness here, not really enjoyment, one looks to buy a game centered around there likes and dislikes. If someone dislikes a game because they were griefed once, then they will buy the game that caters to there interests, PVE. And seeing how its been stated numerous times in this thread, we all know "carebear" servers are the most populated ones, so wouldn't making a game centered on the "carebears" be the most cost-effective way to go?
"Fun is not rooted in logic"
FYI - Although fun MIGHT be rooted in logic, it is far from universal. Just because someone finds something fun, dose'nt mean all people will find something fun. I find enjoyment in playing pool, my fiancee hates it, I think PVP is fun, my fiancee hates it.. The whole last argument doesn't even make sense to me. Its my belief (thats how to avoid universalizing your argument) that people know what is fun for them, and if they say they are not having fun, then that is probably what they are actually feeling.
just a little rant and dont mind the grammar or spelling
Actually I just read the original post properly and have to say there is no argument here.
The original post was stupid sorry.
I had stated before that i would like to see more games that caters to no hold bars pvp.
Reason been those that love it should have more choices and go play there.
The original post is indirectly telling us if you don't play pvp it is not a good game.
If he likes pvp why should he impose it on others?
One thing that always gets me is how people feel you must like what they like.
I remember in UO when they made the non pvp world some folks whined how the game is ruin.
Now why was it ruined they made 2 worlds.1 world same as old pvp ,grief and loot as you like.
Other world with restrictions.
So what stops those that love all out pvp from staying in the old world and continue what they were doing.
Simple point don't impose your views on others.
The reason why splitting the world made the PK'rs angry was because they could no longer victimize the poeple who did not want to get ganked and griefed. They had to fight other PK'rs, which could result in them losing.
I quit UO before the world was ever split. I used to avoid the Gankers by hunting in remote areas. I never ventured in to the dungeons much, because that was surefire way to get ganked by gangs of Griefers.
-{_______________________________________________________}-
Which shall it be, Evil taking over you? or you taking over the Evil!
http://www.aimoo.com/forum/freeboard.cfm?id=559646&NoCaches=Yes
^My Board about my game^
Please go and post!
Actually the premises do establish as the only possible way, in case you didnt read them. It doesn't say anything about success or lasting its talking about continual fun. (as in without break)
"I don't like pvp I was griefed once" is not a valid argument because (thought it was clear enough there) because pvp is a word used to refer to a wide possible range of interactions, and just because someone experienced one or two and didn't like it doesn't mean that all wouldn't be fun. Its called generalization.
No if a game is fun pvp based or not word would get around that it is good and pvp is painless in it. The only reason cost effectiveness is even mentioned in the conclusion is because there is an alternative of having just an obscenely huge staff constantly adding new content to the game without the game having any means of slowing the player down from doing everything. But that would not be cost-effective.
First of all what someone says when you ask them "Do you like pool" could have any number of meanings. For example if they say "no" it could mean everything from "I always lose" to "I could get drunk and lose money betting" to "not right now I wanna hit on that girl" to god knows what. And besides not knowing exactly what the person means, this doesn't tell you what the person is actually feeling. You might be able to make a case for saying a person is not going to lie or not know what they are talking about, and if overall they deem a situation to be bad it provides them with more bad feelings than good.
However where people make claims that are often wrong is when they try to generalize some past experience to ALL experiences of that type. And that is the case here. And as to universality, yes there are some things that cause all humans to have fun and you will learn them in psychology. No person likes to be hated/disliked etc and everyone likes to be loved/respected. These are the base things that twist and turn around to make people's personality and their likes and dislikes. And games deal pretty much directly with these. This is all that is needed to make my argument.
@ TaskyZZ I think that some components of much better pvp have been seen in many different games, for example in DAOC where you can't talk to your enemies. Note how people will see the risk of loosing a pvp match much much higher if the other person is an avid smack talker and usually avoid it. No communication between enemies eliminates this. Different zones where different levels of pvp are allowed are used in some games. Some games don't have levels so anyone can beat anyone no matter how long they have been playing... One thing that has yet to be seen is a handicap for pvper with losing streaks... I think pvp can still come a really long ways.
@hercules the original post isn't about forcing any type of game playing on anyone. The original post is a simple step by step argument that proves something. Not my fault if you don't like it. You are confused if you think there is some huge difference between pvp and just fighting ai controlled mobs that would make this argument impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
In your response you have stated that "I am almost certain it will fail". This implies that you recognise it might not.
You have stated that PvP is the only way to have contant fun and told players who have claimed to not like PvP that they have not experienced every form of PvP and hence can't make that claim. You have not experienced every form of PvE and hence you can't claim that it can't provide constant fun as you don't have the experience to make that assesment. Current PvE requires new content to be added by the devs constantly, what happens if the devs work out a way for content to be dynamic and self generating? No current PvP system (that I know of) provides constant fun either.
I would like to see you change your original statement somewhat to reflect that a PvP BASED game would offer the BEST way to provide a cost effective fun game for the majority of gamers.
Have to admit that you didn't give people much room to move with your premises, is very hard to argue (argue is the wrong word, I'm not trying to argue just offer a different view point) against something so well designed to not give people room to expand on things.