To answer your question, I love to debate and talk, so I sometimes bring up things that something else I read may have made me think about. It doesn't mean I care, it just means I want to talk about it. People talk for many reasons, such as interest, boredom, the need to socialize. I started this thread to see if anyone has thought about FFA PvP from this perspective, and it turns out people really haven't. As with most things people don't understand, they lashed out at my post, completely ignoring the reason and sense in it. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more from the majority of this community, especially those that favor FFA PvP. By the way, I actually don't care about any of this. In a week, I'll forget this thread exists, nothing said in it making any bit of difference in my life. Gaming isn't serious business after all. I don't even play MMORPGs currently, and I especially don't care if you have FFA PvP games to play. It makes no difference to me. I just personally love to discuss things, it's entertaining. However, it's not entertaining once the discussion turns into flaming and people argue like teenagers, instead of like educated adults. At this point, playing through Dragon Age a second time is more entertaining than arguing on this forum, so I might not even come back. We'll see.
You seem reluctant to accept that people can understand your ideas perfectly, but still disagree.
There was some reason and sense in your comments, but there is equally plenty coming from many of the PvPers. It looks rather sad when you attempt to patronise people or debunk people just because they think differently from you.
You say you like to discuss things and yet you seem to expect everyone to agree with you. As a neutral in this argument I would assert that many of the arguments against yours are every bit as rational as yours are.
I don't expect people to agree with me. In fact, I expected opposition. So there goes your theory. I haven't seen one rational argument why FFA PvP in its current form belongs in RPGs. If you've seen these rational arguments, point them out. I'm a man of honor, and have no reason to lie, so if you prove it, then I'll admit as much. But I've read every post and haven't seen any rational reason.
You're walking/driving down the street, wearing a new pair of shoes and a nice outfit, heading over to your girlfriends house to take her out on a date. Some thug out of no where sucker punches you, beats you down, and then takes your shoes, your clothes, and your money. Do you get mad? Would you call the police? What would you do? If this happened every 5 minutes, would you move to another city? That's putting PvP into a real life context that people can understand, because that's what it is. If you can understand the anger and fustration in the above scenario, then you can understand why a person wouldn't want to play a game with FFA PvP w/ full loot. I know none of these pro-FFA Full Loot PvPers would like to live in a world where you get your shit stolen from you every 5 min. Why people would want to live that life in a game is beyond me. Now a game that is a simulation of real life in regards to crime and war is more interesting. There's serious consequences for commiting a crime, but you're free to do so, yet most people don't due to those consequences. A developer wouldn't dare create a game with consequences akin to what you'd find in real life, so I don't think FFA PvP works, which is why it has such a small following. Add real consequences, such as permadeath, blacklisting, criminal status, and real-time jail sentences, then FFA PvP might work and would actually be interesting.
Actually....Ultima Online had consequences, and Mortal Online is being made in a similar way. You're free to kill and loot as you like, BUT...there are consequences for doing so.
Personally...I think the "whine" for FFA PvP comes from FPS players who are a bit bored and want another way to gank people that feels more profitable, and for THEM...meaningful. lol They took some interest in the genre and then...blammo...devs started trying to please everyone, when they probably should have just "told" the FPS gangstas to go back to their "own" games.
You're walking/driving down the street, wearing a new pair of shoes and a nice outfit, heading over to your girlfriends house to take her out on a date. Some thug out of no where sucker punches you, beats you down, and then takes your shoes, your clothes, and your money. Do you get mad? Would you call the police? What would you do? If this happened every 5 minutes, would you move to another city? That's putting PvP into a real life context that people can understand, because that's what it is. If you can understand the anger and fustration in the above scenario, then you can understand why a person wouldn't want to play a game with FFA PvP w/ full loot. I know none of these pro-FFA Full Loot PvPers would like to live in a world where you get your shit stolen from you every 5 min. Why people would want to live that life in a game is beyond me. Now a game that is a simulation of real life in regards to crime and war is more interesting. There's serious consequences for commiting a crime, but you're free to do so, yet most people don't due to those consequences. A developer wouldn't dare create a game with consequences akin to what you'd find in real life, so I don't think FFA PvP works, which is why it has such a small following. Add real consequences, such as permadeath, blacklisting, criminal status, and real-time jail sentences, then FFA PvP might work and would actually be interesting.
This might be your opinion. But if I was walking down the street and got beat up I would learn from that. Next time I am walking down that street I will be ready.. Then Guess What. I get my shoes back, I get my clothes back, I get my money back and I also have the very satisfying taste of Revenge.
Too bad there is no good FFA PVP & Full loot games around atm besides Eve and well Eve is just different.
To answer your question, I love to debate and talk, so I sometimes bring up things that something else I read may have made me think about. It doesn't mean I care, it just means I want to talk about it. People talk for many reasons, such as interest, boredom, the need to socialize. I started this thread to see if anyone has thought about FFA PvP from this perspective, and it turns out people really haven't. As with most things people don't understand, they lashed out at my post, completely ignoring the reason and sense in it. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more from the majority of this community, especially those that favor FFA PvP. By the way, I actually don't care about any of this. In a week, I'll forget this thread exists, nothing said in it making any bit of difference in my life. Gaming isn't serious business after all. I don't even play MMORPGs currently, and I especially don't care if you have FFA PvP games to play. It makes no difference to me. I just personally love to discuss things, it's entertaining. However, it's not entertaining once the discussion turns into flaming and people argue like teenagers, instead of like educated adults. At this point, playing through Dragon Age a second time is more entertaining than arguing on this forum, so I might not even come back. We'll see.
You seem reluctant to accept that people can understand your ideas perfectly, but still disagree.
There was some reason and sense in your comments, but there is equally plenty coming from many of the PvPers. It looks rather sad when you attempt to patronise people or debunk people just because they think differently from you.
You say you like to discuss things and yet you seem to expect everyone to agree with you. As a neutral in this argument I would assert that many of the arguments against yours are every bit as rational as yours are.
I don't expect people to agree with me. In fact, I expected opposition. So there goes your theory. I haven't seen one rational argument why FFA PvP in its current form belongs in RPGs. If you've seen these rational arguments, point them out. I'm a man of honor, and have no reason to lie, so if you prove it, then I'll admit as much. But I've read every post and haven't seen any rational reason.
You haven't made a rational argument against it yet. Just "You wouldn't like this to happen in real life, now would you" and "most people dont like losing to other players". Well duh! Real Life aint a Fantasy Role Playing game and most people prefer winning to losing.
I'm hoping you'll be able to meet the challenge I set you.
You're walking/driving down the street, wearing a new pair of shoes and a nice outfit, heading over to your girlfriends house to take her out on a date. Some thug out of no where sucker punches you, beats you down, and then takes your shoes, your clothes, and your money. Do you get mad? Would you call the police? What would you do? If this happened every 5 minutes, would you move to another city? That's putting PvP into a real life context that people can understand, because that's what it is. If you can understand the anger and fustration in the above scenario, then you can understand why a person wouldn't want to play a game with FFA PvP w/ full loot. I know none of these pro-FFA Full Loot PvPers would like to live in a world where you get your shit stolen from you every 5 min. Why people would want to live that life in a game is beyond me. Now a game that is a simulation of real life in regards to crime and war is more interesting. There's serious consequences for commiting a crime, but you're free to do so, yet most people don't due to those consequences. A developer wouldn't dare create a game with consequences akin to what you'd find in real life, so I don't think FFA PvP works, which is why it has such a small following. Add real consequences, such as permadeath, blacklisting, criminal status, and real-time jail sentences, then FFA PvP might work and would actually be interesting.
Hmm. Initially your post came across to me as the quintessential "carebear" victim mentality of "people kill me but I cant do anything to stop them" which let me to believe that you had no real interest in PvP. I see from reading later posts that the interest is there but your beef seems to have more to do with the "realism" of MMORPG PvP environments. I'm not sure I really agree with your position but the general topic of how to weave good / fun PvP into MMOs does deserve discussion.
So what is fun PvP? Most people who play anything like "full loot" PvP are looking for consequences and challenge. The consequence is obvious. You lose your loot when you die. And where is the challenge? It's great to win that fight when it's an even fight or the odds are against you, but when the odds are nil in your favor... and you lose everything you have nevertheless... and it happens again and again... that becomes the opposite of fun.
The scenario you describe in your post suggests something like the latter. You suggest a one-sided beat down and complete loss of everything. I agree that isn't much fun if you don't have the capability to put up a legitimate fight. And any game with "full loot" PvP needs to have mechanisms in place to help prevent that, or at least mechanisms to protect the young/helpless players from the advanced/predator players. EvE does something like this with their high security areas. The nice thing about EvE's high-sec areas is that it doesn't actually disallow predator players from attacking new players, but it places such stringent consequences on those players that ultimately most of those predators go somewhere else and leave new players alone allowing those new players to learn the game in relative peace.
Adding consequences to PKing young/helpless players is necessary and any "full loot' PvP MMO should do as much. The question becomes how severe do you make those consequences. I would suggest you make them just harsh enough to de-incentivize the scenario where challenge is taken out of the PvP equation.
Basically "full loot" PvP in an MMO needs a kind of balancing mechanism where, while there are significant consequences, the fights you DO get into more than not likely to offer a legitimate challenge to your playing abilities. Thus maintaining both consequences and challenge which translate into fun.
If you want full loot, you need to balance it with a more realistic carrying capacity. You want full loot? Fine, let me see you walk back to town carrying my plate armor, coins, weapons, etc... without getting ganked yourself cause you're moving real slow, encumbered, arms full of stuff, etc...
You're walking/driving down the street, wearing a new pair of shoes and a nice outfit, heading over to your girlfriends house to take her out on a date. Some thug out of no where sucker punches you, beats you down, and then takes your shoes, your clothes, and your money. Do you get mad? Would you call the police? What would you do? If this happened every 5 minutes, would you move to another city? That's putting PvP into a real life context that people can understand, because that's what it is. If you can understand the anger and fustration in the above scenario, then you can understand why a person wouldn't want to play a game with FFA PvP w/ full loot. I know none of these pro-FFA Full Loot PvPers would like to live in a world where you get your shit stolen from you every 5 min. Why people would want to live that life in a game is beyond me. Now a game that is a simulation of real life in regards to crime and war is more interesting. There's serious consequences for commiting a crime, but you're free to do so, yet most people don't due to those consequences. A developer wouldn't dare create a game with consequences akin to what you'd find in real life, so I don't think FFA PvP works, which is why it has such a small following. Add real consequences, such as permadeath, blacklisting, criminal status, and real-time jail sentences, then FFA PvP might work and would actually be interesting.
Wouldn't that make crime as rare as it is in the real world? Why would you want to ruin the fun. A FFA PVP Full Loot game has its niche, it is targeted to players that like living on the edge, like to go after someone for his stuff, or about hes talking crap. And there is also the subniche of crimestoppers, such as yourself, that start a guild of order in a world of chaos, which is fun.
The whole point of a sandbox, albeit FFA PVP Full Loot, is so that the players run this. The game should definitely NOT have built in mechanics that punishes ingame "criminals". Reason being, the Earth (game) doesn't have ingame mechanics that stop us humans (players) from doing wrong, only society (player community).
In game mechanics will just make it annoying to do crime. Sometimes you wanna kill someone for talking trash about you or your clan... why should you get criminal status for that? It isn't like he isn't coming back to life or he is gone forever like the real world.
Games are here for a reason, what you propose is a simulation, which is not a game.
If you want full loot, you need to balance it with a more realistic carrying capacity. You want full loot? Fine, let me see you walk back to town carrying my plate armor, coins, weapons, etc... without getting ganked yourself cause you're moving real slow, encumbered, arms full of stuff, etc...
You're walking/driving down the street, wearing a new pair of shoes and a nice outfit, heading over to your girlfriends house to take her out on a date. Some thug out of no where sucker punches you, beats you down, and then takes your shoes, your clothes, and your money. Do you get mad? Would you call the police? What would you do? If this happened every 5 minutes, would you move to another city? That's putting PvP into a real life context that people can understand, because that's what it is.
You're in a war in real life? Where do you live and why haven't you moved?
Comments
You seem reluctant to accept that people can understand your ideas perfectly, but still disagree.
There was some reason and sense in your comments, but there is equally plenty coming from many of the PvPers. It looks rather sad when you attempt to patronise people or debunk people just because they think differently from you.
You say you like to discuss things and yet you seem to expect everyone to agree with you. As a neutral in this argument I would assert that many of the arguments against yours are every bit as rational as yours are.
I don't expect people to agree with me. In fact, I expected opposition. So there goes your theory. I haven't seen one rational argument why FFA PvP in its current form belongs in RPGs. If you've seen these rational arguments, point them out. I'm a man of honor, and have no reason to lie, so if you prove it, then I'll admit as much. But I've read every post and haven't seen any rational reason.
Actually....Ultima Online had consequences, and Mortal Online is being made in a similar way. You're free to kill and loot as you like, BUT...there are consequences for doing so.
Personally...I think the "whine" for FFA PvP comes from FPS players who are a bit bored and want another way to gank people that feels more profitable, and for THEM...meaningful. lol They took some interest in the genre and then...blammo...devs started trying to please everyone, when they probably should have just "told" the FPS gangstas to go back to their "own" games.
Yeah...I know....I'm being a bit of a smartass.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
This might be your opinion. But if I was walking down the street and got beat up I would learn from that. Next time I am walking down that street I will be ready.. Then Guess What. I get my shoes back, I get my clothes back, I get my money back and I also have the very satisfying taste of Revenge.
Too bad there is no good FFA PVP & Full loot games around atm besides Eve and well Eve is just different.
You seem reluctant to accept that people can understand your ideas perfectly, but still disagree.
There was some reason and sense in your comments, but there is equally plenty coming from many of the PvPers. It looks rather sad when you attempt to patronise people or debunk people just because they think differently from you.
You say you like to discuss things and yet you seem to expect everyone to agree with you. As a neutral in this argument I would assert that many of the arguments against yours are every bit as rational as yours are.
I don't expect people to agree with me. In fact, I expected opposition. So there goes your theory. I haven't seen one rational argument why FFA PvP in its current form belongs in RPGs. If you've seen these rational arguments, point them out. I'm a man of honor, and have no reason to lie, so if you prove it, then I'll admit as much. But I've read every post and haven't seen any rational reason.
You haven't made a rational argument against it yet. Just "You wouldn't like this to happen in real life, now would you" and "most people dont like losing to other players". Well duh! Real Life aint a Fantasy Role Playing game and most people prefer winning to losing.
I'm hoping you'll be able to meet the challenge I set you.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Exactly what I said.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Hmm. Initially your post came across to me as the quintessential "carebear" victim mentality of "people kill me but I cant do anything to stop them" which let me to believe that you had no real interest in PvP. I see from reading later posts that the interest is there but your beef seems to have more to do with the "realism" of MMORPG PvP environments. I'm not sure I really agree with your position but the general topic of how to weave good / fun PvP into MMOs does deserve discussion.
So what is fun PvP? Most people who play anything like "full loot" PvP are looking for consequences and challenge. The consequence is obvious. You lose your loot when you die. And where is the challenge? It's great to win that fight when it's an even fight or the odds are against you, but when the odds are nil in your favor... and you lose everything you have nevertheless... and it happens again and again... that becomes the opposite of fun.
The scenario you describe in your post suggests something like the latter. You suggest a one-sided beat down and complete loss of everything. I agree that isn't much fun if you don't have the capability to put up a legitimate fight. And any game with "full loot" PvP needs to have mechanisms in place to help prevent that, or at least mechanisms to protect the young/helpless players from the advanced/predator players. EvE does something like this with their high security areas. The nice thing about EvE's high-sec areas is that it doesn't actually disallow predator players from attacking new players, but it places such stringent consequences on those players that ultimately most of those predators go somewhere else and leave new players alone allowing those new players to learn the game in relative peace.
Adding consequences to PKing young/helpless players is necessary and any "full loot' PvP MMO should do as much. The question becomes how severe do you make those consequences. I would suggest you make them just harsh enough to de-incentivize the scenario where challenge is taken out of the PvP equation.
Basically "full loot" PvP in an MMO needs a kind of balancing mechanism where, while there are significant consequences, the fights you DO get into more than not likely to offer a legitimate challenge to your playing abilities. Thus maintaining both consequences and challenge which translate into fun.
If you want full loot, you need to balance it with a more realistic carrying capacity. You want full loot? Fine, let me see you walk back to town carrying my plate armor, coins, weapons, etc... without getting ganked yourself cause you're moving real slow, encumbered, arms full of stuff, etc...
Wouldn't that make crime as rare as it is in the real world? Why would you want to ruin the fun. A FFA PVP Full Loot game has its niche, it is targeted to players that like living on the edge, like to go after someone for his stuff, or about hes talking crap. And there is also the subniche of crimestoppers, such as yourself, that start a guild of order in a world of chaos, which is fun.
The whole point of a sandbox, albeit FFA PVP Full Loot, is so that the players run this. The game should definitely NOT have built in mechanics that punishes ingame "criminals". Reason being, the Earth (game) doesn't have ingame mechanics that stop us humans (players) from doing wrong, only society (player community).
In game mechanics will just make it annoying to do crime. Sometimes you wanna kill someone for talking trash about you or your clan... why should you get criminal status for that? It isn't like he isn't coming back to life or he is gone forever like the real world.
Games are here for a reason, what you propose is a simulation, which is not a game.
That's perfectly reasonable.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
You're in a war in real life? Where do you live and why haven't you moved?
Sounds like the projects.
PLaying: EvE, Ryzom
Waiting For: Earthrise, Perpetuum