Originally posted by boognish75 well why would someone put themselves in a game that is not suited for them , just to complain about it? i still dont get the war going on here, it reminds me of a race war, yall seem to be fighting cause yer different, I have a very simple salution, go play a game that suits yer playstyle , and tolerate eachother in the forumns, and stop this nonsense.
It's because for all of the careful definitions of carebear here, the 'hardcore' PVP crowd tends to call people 'carebears' for not wanting a very narrow flavor of PVP, the FFA full-loot style. And they post a great many threads where they both whine that there are no games like they want plus insult anyone who says they don't like the game or even questions why such a game would be enjoyable. If you take the people who identify as 'hardcore' PVPers out of the discussion, it's easy to have a civilized conversation, and probably no one will even use the word 'carebear'.
Originally posted by Dameonk Lets look at Warhammer for a minute. This is a game, by definition, that will cater to the "hardcore pvp" crowd,
Where exactly did you hear that? Everything I've read says that Warhammer is not going to allow you to take other player's stuff, you will loot their bodies but it will be generated loot like mob loot, not the stuff they carry. Plus it will be based on Realm vs Realm combat, you won't be able to gank people on your own side. So, by definition, it will not cater to the "hardcore" PVP crowd, who want an FFA (not RvR), full-loot (as in take all of the other person's stuff) game.
There was a thread about this recently, where all of the 'hardcores' posting agreed that WAR would be a carebear game, so I'm not sure why you think WAR would appeal to that crowd.
So how exactly does this alleged risk vs reward factor in if you go off mining or clearing a dungeon or other PVE pursuit, come home carrying your loot, and get ambushed by a guy in easily replaceable gear? Or get jumped by 5 guys from ambush specifically set up for the kind of ambush they're doing (like EVE gate camps)? Or get jumped by 10 guys when there are 5 of you because they just look around for smaller groups and run if they see bigger ones? Or what if you're a newbie trying to get your first set of gear and keep getting killed every time you res by some guy camping the newbie area?
'Risk vs reward' is something that the 'hardcore' crowd says to sound sophisticated, but I've yet to hear an adequate explanation of how that term can really apply to any full-loot game. The actual gameplay ends up being 'risk little for big rewards', like the situations I listed above, and not 'you have to risk big to win big' like the expression would normally mean. As far as I can tell, saying 'risk vs reward' really just means 'I want to be able to gank people and take their stuff, but I have a fancy way of saying it'.
Simple, those that risk the danger of ambush, getting jumped, or getting outnumbered sometimes, will be the successful PvE palyers that avoid suchs things other times. Since they are willing to take these risks they will be rewarded. Those that take the risks more often or more intelligently will be rewarded with successes more often. Those PvE players that cower in town or protection or that play foolishly will not be successful.
The newbie that keeps res'ing in a spot where he continues to be killed is an idiot, he makes his bed a lies in it. The newbie that goes elsewhere, makes friends or waits to res is rewarded and successful.
How risk versus reward applies to a full loot game is that you risk to lose whatever you benefit from using. So if you risk losing good gear, then you are rewarded with the benefits of that good gear. If you use crappy gear that you don't care if you lose, then you will have a crappy disadvantage.
I think the OP is one of those people that love to gank lower level people and log off fast when higher level people are coming to his spot to kill him over and over again until he understands that he has a problem.
It's just a small group of ffa pvp players that play like assholes, most of us are looking for big battles. Yes at times i do a gank which hangs closely on how the other player behaves (my wife yesterday killed someone because she stood still and watched a lowbie fight to see if she could heal him when needed. But after "fuck of moron this is a newbie zone" she deceided that the person needed a lesson. She learned a lot of new curses after that)
What i dont understand is people buying a full ffa pvp game and start whining on the boards that they get killed and their arent any safe zones where they can play. If i want to use the term carebear it would be those people.
Most full pvp people want to have a blast with their type of game. I dont mind people want to pve mostly and dont like ganking,dropping loot. But please dont start to play a full ffa pvp game and ask the developers to change the game so they can have fun too.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar This can be pretty easily argued. The most popular games are competitive, not people ganking, griefing or killing each other. Cards, for most people are competitive, not about grief.
Neither is PvP about grief. Morons associate PvP with grief because they're morons. The phrase conjures game mechanics and principles to surface in their mind that are nearly a decade old. PvP is not about grief; it's about PvP. Games with poor mechanics are about grief; PvP or otherwise.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
For people who don't like to get killed in a game, don't play an MMO with open PvP. A large majority of the games out there allows only PvE or "arena" PvP, which is basically the same thing, where you risk losing nothing or earning nothing. Those who like to be able to kill anyone, win alot, or lose alot, there's a few games for us out there too. Not nearly enough though, basically there's EVE.
And the op is right, that is the definition of a carebear, and it's obvious most people flaming him are carebears. He should've added, "people who flame PvP'ers are carebears".
I kill PvPers, corpse guard them, and make sure they remain naked. I play broken classes, use cheats, hacks, and exploits. I buy and sell virtual property and accounts for profits. If the game designers actually tested stuff it wouldn't be so easy. They are just in it for a fast buck. Guess that makes me "hardcore".
Originally posted by sempiternal Simple, those that risk the danger of ambush, getting jumped, or getting outnumbered sometimes, will be the successful PvE palyers that avoid suchs things other times. h Since they are willing to take these risks they will be rewarded.
Except that the person doing the jumping risks no more ambushing the guy returning to town instead of the guy heading off to mine or explore the dungeon (he probably risks less since the guy coming home may be injured or low on consumables), but gets much greater reward. Earlier you claimed that the risk vs reward factored into PVP, that you had to risk more to gain more in PVP, but we see here that in the incredibly common situation of a robber hitting someone who's completed some PVE stuff, you get much more reward with no more risk.
Full-loot makes the game about minimizing risk, but doesn't actually offer a risk vs reward tradeoff, at least in PVP combat. And this isn't some theoretical construct, people who played UO can tell you about reds waiting to ambush people returning from mining/dungeoning, EVE players can tell you about gate camps and pirates hitting haulers or miners, and so on for any other full-loot games.
If there was generally an actual risk vs reward mechanic people would be less opposed to full-loot PVP, but there isn't. If a guy waits until you've mined to attack you, he doesn't have to risk any more for the reward. If 2 people attack you instead of 1, they greatly reduce their risk, merely have to split their reward between them, and can further lower their risk by not carrying valuables. That's why I always call it 'gank-and-loot PVP'.
The newbie that keeps res'ing in a spot where he continues to be killed is an idiot, he makes his bed a lies in it. The newbie that goes elsewhere, makes friends or waits to res is rewarded and successful.
And the 'hardcore' crowd wonders why people don't like their games and laugh when they talk about how great their communities are. Yeah, obviously newbies who want to play the game and work their way out of newbie status is an idiot, they should just go to a harder area (with no explanation of how to get past the people camping the newbie area), or just not play the game until the gankers get bored, or join a guild in which he doesn't know anyone.
Originally posted by Lordbaldur And the op is right, that is the definition of a carebear, and it's obvious most people flaming him are carebears. He should've added, "people who flame PvP'ers are carebears".
The problem with this is that a lot of the people flaming the OP are PVPers, just not fans of gank-and-loot PVP.
You're wrong. Most people dislike unrestricted, FFA PvP.
Hey look at that- when I take out the words you put in my mouth; I'm right after all I you sunuvabitch?
Oh goneglockin, Do ye not understand the basic subsystems of PvP? No, you do not, which is why your brain cells have all gone on strike.
But seriosly, let me enlighten you.
Censenual PvP: PvP in which 2 players agree to fight each other, much like a duel. Usually does not include losses.
Restricted Open PvP: PvP in which two players do not need to agree to kill each other, but no real losses are suffered either.
FFA PvP: Your so-called "hardcore" PvP, in which you can kill whoever you want, whenever, and loot them completely, a system not in use by the vast majority of games, yet it is a topic so hotly debated and prone to so much bitching that many people start to lose intrest in the damn thing anyway.
And sepiternal, I knew we'd be seeing you in a topic like this, you jsut can't resist having your views smashed time and time again, it seems.
Adn yoru swearing, which losses you a massive amount of weight. And Son of a B**ch is more effective, you could have also tried mentally challeneged, mentally inferior, or even something more complex like cerebrically defecient.
And Good GOD, some of these replies are just...no.... Do some of you even HAVE a middle school education? Maybe you people are in the MMO-KKK, I've never seen such intolerance, this is why humanity is probably doomed.
I think it's the objective of your past self to make you cringe.
Pantastic, you are missing the big picture, as most carebears do.
In an open PvP, full loot environment, when miners must risk being attacked and losing everything before getting back to safety, the best miners are rewarded with a more valuable and meaningful profession because their services and products are limited, it actually benefits them overall. And, that's the point of a game, competition; may the best man win, may the best miners win.
In a PvE, consensual only game, where every miner, regardless of skills, guild affiliation, strategy, friendships, intelligence or experience always makes it back to town with all his ore, mining becomes a worthless profession as the ore mined out of control becomes worthless as even the newest newbie or unskilled fool can do it - the profession is destroyed along with the economy. Not only does it allow every player to horde ore, but It allows even the dumbest bot or script to out perform actual players, running 24 hours a day.
Originally posted by sempiternal Pantastic, you are missing the big picture, as most carebears do. In an open PvP, full loot environment, when miners must risk being attacked and losing everything before getting back to safety, the best miners are rewarded with a more valuable and meaningful profession because their services and products are limited, it actually benefits them overall. And, that's the point of a game, competition; may the best man win, may the best miners win. In a PvE, consensual only game, where every miner, regardless of skills, guild affiliation, strategy, friendships, intelligence or experience always makes it back to town with all his ore, mining becomes a worthless profession as the ore mined out of control becomes worthless as even the newest newbie or unskilled fool can do it - the profession is destroyed along with the economy. Not only does it allow every player to horde ore, but It allows even the dumbest bot or script to out perform actual players, running 24 hours a day.
Now I see this sort of argument a lot. Let's see this from an even bigger picture, in terms of computer entertainment as a whole.
MMORPGs, especially graphic ones, are just one type of game in the broader realm of what we might call, "online games."
Online games include other formats that have far greater popularity, and history, than MMORPGs. Games that are as diverse from eachother as realtime strategy, sports games, first person shooters, and online casino gambling. In all of these genres, PvP isn't just a diversion. PvP is the essence of these games.
Competitive PvP games have been around for far longer, in a far greater variety, than massive, online, graphics-based roleplaying games. If the people really wanted it, they always had it. So then, if competition is what MMORPG players want, then why did they ever want to start in on MMORPGs in the first place?
Massive, online roleplaying games became popular, not because they were about competition, but specifically because massive, online roleplaying games were not about competition. They offered an online alternative to competitive PvP games for those who like to play online, but do not like the whole "geek football" mentality behind collective computer gaming.
MMORPGs were unique, because they could function as platforms for self-expression, creativity, and collective storytelling. Things that cannot happen in an environment where everything important can be reduced to mathematical DPS calculations in the combat engine. That is what PvP basically amounts to. It is boring, is no test of skill, and is a waste of a good medium that is capable of so much more.
In fact, MMORPGs may be the only medum that can do so, not counting MUDs of course, but then again, I don't see nearly as many abstract arguments about value, achievement, and worthiness through PvP in terms of text MUDs, as I do in terms of graphic MMORPGs. Not that they'd even need to do so, since most MUDs I have seen that are well developed do have FFA PvP. In fact, the PvP in MUDs actually works, and works well.
So then, if FFA PvPers want FFA PvP, why not go to text MUDs? The same reason that many of us do not: the games are so much more engaging with sound, and graphics. So much so, that we are willing to pay a large amount of money to have a good, massive, online roleplaying game.
However, the box fee is not refundable. We have to pay our sub fees in advance. Nobody is going to give back our money when we discover that the game doesn't work for our enjoyment. If the "best man wins," then what is the point of the second best man paying for another month? Moreover, if MMOs have to be as competitive as any other type of online game out there, then why not just play the other online games, that are designed around good PvP, cheaper, offer a single-player option, and peer-to-peer screening?
If I wanted to risk my money in a game of chance against other players, then I can play online poker at any time of day, and even make some money without having to go through eBay.
How can any MMORPG possibly give me better than that in terms of PvP?
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
That's how I define a game.
Has to be a competition whether you are keeping track of points or not. AI does not count as a competitor, especially really crappy AI like in MMORPG's. A competitor must think or true AI (see the definition of true AI). Single player games are more a competition against yourself to get done as quickly as possible or with most points (example: solitare or The Legend of Soltar). I guess in some sense that is what online PvM is except like noted above the AI in online is dumb as hell (designed to lose more easily than normal).
If you want to insult someone call them a fool or a fag or something everyone knows what that means and it is much more effective. Not very many people outside the MMORPG circle will even know what you are talking about, most of them in it won't either.
Let this die it was dumb to begin with.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open. Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
What is the point, when these people with pre-Trammel UO separation anxiety will just post three more threads?
Don't get me wrong. I liked UO too. It was a good game in spite of the FFA PvP, because we played differently in those days. We didn't let the business of playing interfere with the play in those days.
I'm not sure it can work today. We are too seriously competitive these days, that we tend to strip the fun right out of the games, for the sake of being more competitive.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Originally posted by sempiternal Pantastic, you are missing the big picture, as most carebears do.
Ohh, look at the brave 'hardcore' PVPer! He's implying that I'm a carebear, but if I call him on it will just deny it saying that he only said carebears miss the picture, not that I'm one. If he was actually calling me a carebear, I'd challenge him to explain which of the previously posted definitions fit, though he's clearly set up to weasel away from it.
Anyone who hasn't given up on this thread already can see the actual use of carebear is 'someone who doesn't want this highly specific type of PVP' instead of the various specific definitions posted earlier.
In an open PvP, full loot environment, when miners must risk being attacked and losing everything before getting back to safety, the best miners are rewarded with a more valuable and meaningful profession because their services and products are limited, it actually benefits them overall. And, that's the point of a game, competition; may the best man win, may the best miners win.
So what you're saying is that your risk vs reward actually has nothing to do with PVP, that it's a PVE only construct, and that in FFA PVP games there is no such thing as 'risk vs reward' for people actually engaging in PVP? Why do you guys bring it up in threads about PVP then? Because you certainly haven't explained how the robber lying in wait has to risk more for greater rewards. Since I'm a real PVPer and not a 'hardcore' lamer, I care about the effect of game rules on actual PVP far more than on PVE.
As I said in the post you were responding to, "Full-loot makes the game about minimizing risk, but doesn't actually offer a risk vs reward tradeoff, at least in PVP combat. And this isn't some theoretical construct, people who played UO can tell you about reds waiting to ambush people returning from mining/dungeoning, EVE players can tell you about gate camps and pirates hitting haulers or miners, and so on for any other full-loot games."
Plus, look at an actual open PVP, full loot environemnt like EVE. Compare a miner who belongs to a big alliance with one who mines on his own. The miner on his own takes a lot of risks to mine any juicy 0.0 asteroids, while the one in the alliance can pretty much go AFK because even if someone attacks his alliance, there are other people around to do the fighting, and he can just logout if anyone not blue shows up in local. The alliance miner actually makes far more money with far less risk than the non-alliance one, so it looks like your risk vs reward vanished again.
Nope, 'risk vs reward' still seems to be used just as a better-sounding way to say 'I want to be able to gank people and take their stuff''.
Originally posted by Entreri28 a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators. That's how I define a game.
So traditional card games like solitare variations don't qualify as games to you? Traditional P&P RPGs don't qualify as games either? Neither do single player computer games, a market which completely dwarfs MMORPGs? And, strangely, any game played solo becomes not a game while being played solo? It doesn't sound to me like your definition matches up with what billions of other people mean by the word, and language is meant to communicate.
Interestingly, you can call PVE MMORPGs like EQ a competition based on endurance, since getting the best spawns requires having people camp out for hours on end, and getting to the highest levels and best gear requires people to endure weeks or months of repetive /played.
EDIT: Another odd point is that if I play a single player game, it doens't qualify as a game to you. But if I submit my score in that game to a central ranking area, that same activity then becomes a game.
Comments
It's because for all of the careful definitions of carebear here, the 'hardcore' PVP crowd tends to call people 'carebears' for not wanting a very narrow flavor of PVP, the FFA full-loot style. And they post a great many threads where they both whine that there are no games like they want plus insult anyone who says they don't like the game or even questions why such a game would be enjoyable. If you take the people who identify as 'hardcore' PVPers out of the discussion, it's easy to have a civilized conversation, and probably no one will even use the word 'carebear'.
Where exactly did you hear that? Everything I've read says that Warhammer is not going to allow you to take other player's stuff, you will loot their bodies but it will be generated loot like mob loot, not the stuff they carry. Plus it will be based on Realm vs Realm combat, you won't be able to gank people on your own side. So, by definition, it will not cater to the "hardcore" PVP crowd, who want an FFA (not RvR), full-loot (as in take all of the other person's stuff) game.
There was a thread about this recently, where all of the 'hardcores' posting agreed that WAR would be a carebear game, so I'm not sure why you think WAR would appeal to that crowd.
Simple, those that risk the danger of ambush, getting jumped, or getting outnumbered sometimes, will be the successful PvE palyers that avoid suchs things other times. Since they are willing to take these risks they will be rewarded. Those that take the risks more often or more intelligently will be rewarded with successes more often. Those PvE players that cower in town or protection or that play foolishly will not be successful.
The newbie that keeps res'ing in a spot where he continues to be killed is an idiot, he makes his bed a lies in it. The newbie that goes elsewhere, makes friends or waits to res is rewarded and successful.
How risk versus reward applies to a full loot game is that you risk to lose whatever you benefit from using. So if you risk losing good gear, then you are rewarded with the benefits of that good gear. If you use crappy gear that you don't care if you lose, then you will have a crappy disadvantage.
I think the OP is one of those people that love to gank lower level people and log off fast when higher level people are coming to his spot to kill him over and over again until he understands that he has a problem.
It's just a small group of ffa pvp players that play like assholes, most of us are looking for big battles. Yes at times i do a gank which hangs closely on how the other player behaves (my wife yesterday killed someone because she stood still and watched a lowbie fight to see if she could heal him when needed. But after "fuck of moron this is a newbie zone" she deceided that the person needed a lesson. She learned a lot of new curses after that)
What i dont understand is people buying a full ffa pvp game and start whining on the boards that they get killed and their arent any safe zones where they can play. If i want to use the term carebear it would be those people.
Most full pvp people want to have a blast with their type of game. I dont mind people want to pve mostly and dont like ganking,dropping loot. But please dont start to play a full ffa pvp game and ask the developers to change the game so they can have fun too.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
For people who don't like to get killed in a game, don't play an MMO with open PvP. A large majority of the games out there allows only PvE or "arena" PvP, which is basically the same thing, where you risk losing nothing or earning nothing. Those who like to be able to kill anyone, win alot, or lose alot, there's a few games for us out there too. Not nearly enough though, basically there's EVE.
And the op is right, that is the definition of a carebear, and it's obvious most people flaming him are carebears. He should've added, "people who flame PvP'ers are carebears".
Except that the person doing the jumping risks no more ambushing the guy returning to town instead of the guy heading off to mine or explore the dungeon (he probably risks less since the guy coming home may be injured or low on consumables), but gets much greater reward. Earlier you claimed that the risk vs reward factored into PVP, that you had to risk more to gain more in PVP, but we see here that in the incredibly common situation of a robber hitting someone who's completed some PVE stuff, you get much more reward with no more risk.
Full-loot makes the game about minimizing risk, but doesn't actually offer a risk vs reward tradeoff, at least in PVP combat. And this isn't some theoretical construct, people who played UO can tell you about reds waiting to ambush people returning from mining/dungeoning, EVE players can tell you about gate camps and pirates hitting haulers or miners, and so on for any other full-loot games.
If there was generally an actual risk vs reward mechanic people would be less opposed to full-loot PVP, but there isn't. If a guy waits until you've mined to attack you, he doesn't have to risk any more for the reward. If 2 people attack you instead of 1, they greatly reduce their risk, merely have to split their reward between them, and can further lower their risk by not carrying valuables. That's why I always call it 'gank-and-loot PVP'.
And the 'hardcore' crowd wonders why people don't like their games and laugh when they talk about how great their communities are. Yeah, obviously newbies who want to play the game and work their way out of newbie status is an idiot, they should just go to a harder area (with no explanation of how to get past the people camping the newbie area), or just not play the game until the gankers get bored, or join a guild in which he doesn't know anyone.
The problem with this is that a lot of the people flaming the OP are PVPers, just not fans of gank-and-loot PVP.
Oh goneglockin, Do ye not understand the basic subsystems of PvP? No, you do not, which is why your brain cells have all gone on strike.
But seriosly, let me enlighten you.
Censenual PvP: PvP in which 2 players agree to fight each other, much like a duel. Usually does not include losses.
Restricted Open PvP: PvP in which two players do not need to agree to kill each other, but no real losses are suffered either.
FFA PvP: Your so-called "hardcore" PvP, in which you can kill whoever you want, whenever, and loot them completely, a system not in use by the vast majority of games, yet it is a topic so hotly debated and prone to so much bitching that many people start to lose intrest in the damn thing anyway.
And sepiternal, I knew we'd be seeing you in a topic like this, you jsut can't resist having your views smashed time and time again, it seems.
Adn yoru swearing, which losses you a massive amount of weight. And Son of a B**ch is more effective, you could have also tried mentally challeneged, mentally inferior, or even something more complex like cerebrically defecient.
And Good GOD, some of these replies are just...no.... Do some of you even HAVE a middle school education? Maybe you people are in the MMO-KKK, I've never seen such intolerance, this is why humanity is probably doomed.
I think it's the objective of your past self to make you cringe.
Pantastic, you are missing the big picture, as most carebears do.
In an open PvP, full loot environment, when miners must risk being attacked and losing everything before getting back to safety, the best miners are rewarded with a more valuable and meaningful profession because their services and products are limited, it actually benefits them overall. And, that's the point of a game, competition; may the best man win, may the best miners win.
In a PvE, consensual only game, where every miner, regardless of skills, guild affiliation, strategy, friendships, intelligence or experience always makes it back to town with all his ore, mining becomes a worthless profession as the ore mined out of control becomes worthless as even the newest newbie or unskilled fool can do it - the profession is destroyed along with the economy. Not only does it allow every player to horde ore, but It allows even the dumbest bot or script to out perform actual players, running 24 hours a day.
Now I see this sort of argument a lot. Let's see this from an even bigger picture, in terms of computer entertainment as a whole.
MMORPGs, especially graphic ones, are just one type of game in the broader realm of what we might call, "online games."
Online games include other formats that have far greater popularity, and history, than MMORPGs. Games that are as diverse from eachother as realtime strategy, sports games, first person shooters, and online casino gambling. In all of these genres, PvP isn't just a diversion. PvP is the essence of these games.
Competitive PvP games have been around for far longer, in a far greater variety, than massive, online, graphics-based roleplaying games. If the people really wanted it, they always had it. So then, if competition is what MMORPG players want, then why did they ever want to start in on MMORPGs in the first place?
Massive, online roleplaying games became popular, not because they were about competition, but specifically because massive, online roleplaying games were not about competition. They offered an online alternative to competitive PvP games for those who like to play online, but do not like the whole "geek football" mentality behind collective computer gaming.
MMORPGs were unique, because they could function as platforms for self-expression, creativity, and collective storytelling. Things that cannot happen in an environment where everything important can be reduced to mathematical DPS calculations in the combat engine. That is what PvP basically amounts to. It is boring, is no test of skill, and is a waste of a good medium that is capable of so much more.
In fact, MMORPGs may be the only medum that can do so, not counting MUDs of course, but then again, I don't see nearly as many abstract arguments about value, achievement, and worthiness through PvP in terms of text MUDs, as I do in terms of graphic MMORPGs. Not that they'd even need to do so, since most MUDs I have seen that are well developed do have FFA PvP. In fact, the PvP in MUDs actually works, and works well.
So then, if FFA PvPers want FFA PvP, why not go to text MUDs? The same reason that many of us do not: the games are so much more engaging with sound, and graphics. So much so, that we are willing to pay a large amount of money to have a good, massive, online roleplaying game.
However, the box fee is not refundable. We have to pay our sub fees in advance. Nobody is going to give back our money when we discover that the game doesn't work for our enjoyment. If the "best man wins," then what is the point of the second best man paying for another month? Moreover, if MMOs have to be as competitive as any other type of online game out there, then why not just play the other online games, that are designed around good PvP, cheaper, offer a single-player option, and peer-to-peer screening?
If I wanted to risk my money in a game of chance against other players, then I can play online poker at any time of day, and even make some money without having to go through eBay.
How can any MMORPG possibly give me better than that in terms of PvP?
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
That's how I define a game.
Has to be a competition whether you are keeping track of points or not. AI does not count as a competitor, especially really crappy AI like in MMORPG's. A competitor must think or true AI (see the definition of true AI). Single player games are more a competition against yourself to get done as quickly as possible or with most points (example: solitare or The Legend of Soltar). I guess in some sense that is what online PvM is except like noted above the AI in online is dumb as hell (designed to lose more easily than normal).
If you want to insult someone call them a fool or a fag or something everyone knows what that means and it is much more effective. Not very many people outside the MMORPG circle will even know what you are talking about, most of them in it won't either.
Let this die it was dumb to begin with.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open.
Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
What is the point, when these people with pre-Trammel UO separation anxiety will just post three more threads?
Don't get me wrong. I liked UO too. It was a good game in spite of the FFA PvP, because we played differently in those days. We didn't let the business of playing interfere with the play in those days.
I'm not sure it can work today. We are too seriously competitive these days, that we tend to strip the fun right out of the games, for the sake of being more competitive.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Ohh, look at the brave 'hardcore' PVPer! He's implying that I'm a carebear, but if I call him on it will just deny it saying that he only said carebears miss the picture, not that I'm one. If he was actually calling me a carebear, I'd challenge him to explain which of the previously posted definitions fit, though he's clearly set up to weasel away from it.
Anyone who hasn't given up on this thread already can see the actual use of carebear is 'someone who doesn't want this highly specific type of PVP' instead of the various specific definitions posted earlier.
So what you're saying is that your risk vs reward actually has nothing to do with PVP, that it's a PVE only construct, and that in FFA PVP games there is no such thing as 'risk vs reward' for people actually engaging in PVP? Why do you guys bring it up in threads about PVP then? Because you certainly haven't explained how the robber lying in wait has to risk more for greater rewards. Since I'm a real PVPer and not a 'hardcore' lamer, I care about the effect of game rules on actual PVP far more than on PVE.
As I said in the post you were responding to, "Full-loot makes the game about minimizing risk, but doesn't actually offer a risk vs reward tradeoff, at least in PVP combat. And this isn't some theoretical construct, people who played UO can tell you about reds waiting to ambush people returning from mining/dungeoning, EVE players can tell you about gate camps and pirates hitting haulers or miners, and so on for any other full-loot games."
Plus, look at an actual open PVP, full loot environemnt like EVE. Compare a miner who belongs to a big alliance with one who mines on his own. The miner on his own takes a lot of risks to mine any juicy 0.0 asteroids, while the one in the alliance can pretty much go AFK because even if someone attacks his alliance, there are other people around to do the fighting, and he can just logout if anyone not blue shows up in local. The alliance miner actually makes far more money with far less risk than the non-alliance one, so it looks like your risk vs reward vanished again.
Nope, 'risk vs reward' still seems to be used just as a better-sounding way to say 'I want to be able to gank people and take their stuff''.
So traditional card games like solitare variations don't qualify as games to you? Traditional P&P RPGs don't qualify as games either? Neither do single player computer games, a market which completely dwarfs MMORPGs? And, strangely, any game played solo becomes not a game while being played solo? It doesn't sound to me like your definition matches up with what billions of other people mean by the word, and language is meant to communicate.
Interestingly, you can call PVE MMORPGs like EQ a competition based on endurance, since getting the best spawns requires having people camp out for hours on end, and getting to the highest levels and best gear requires people to endure weeks or months of repetive /played.
EDIT: Another odd point is that if I play a single player game, it doens't qualify as a game to you. But if I submit my score in that game to a central ranking area, that same activity then becomes a game.