This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
I have just made a choice. That choice is that I will get right to developing a game that hangs on your every whim, is exactly tailored to you, and made so you are the only one that enjoys it. I will be getting to work on it in 5 minutes, should be done in about 6.
Casuals ALWAYS state they ARE forced to ride it, becuase they always state they have to get the SAME rewards.
You want the SAME trophy as Lance Armstrong, but you want to ride around the block to get it? And you think Lance Armstrong would STILL be just as rewarded by riding 2,200 miles to get the EXACT same trophy?
No, no and NO!
Who is asking for the trophy or even talking about the rewards?
If someone doesn't want to take part in your bike race, why should they be forced to do so? This isn't a discussion about epenis stroking and showing of trohpy loot. It is about gameplay. Games should offer people things they enjoy doing.
The bike race is there for people who do enjoy that type of play, just like casual play is there for those who enjoy that. If you don't like something you shouldn't be forced to do it.
Hardmode stuff is added to casual games all the time and casual players seem content with that.
Do casuals ALWAYS [in big bold capital absolutes] demand the same reward for avoiding content or is it just a few people that you are blowing out of proportion? It sounds like people in wow, for example, are content with there being hardmode encounters that the overwhelming majority of players will never see. Where are the riots demanding hardmode rewards for not doing the content?
I just find the logic in this thread very one sided and full of double standards. Game should be about choice? As long as they are the choices you approve of and don't include anything that doesn't cater to your personal game tastes. That is the message I keep reading in this thread.
Cool. Now all you have to do is apply what you just said to yourself and we can finaly end this debate.
I've always applied it to myself. I hate solo fest MMORPgs, and I dont' mind saying so.
I completely understand that adding good grouping mechanics to the game screws up yoru solo fest.
I certainly dont' mind if you want to play a solo fest game like WoW. Everyone likes different sorts of games.
I think Raiding should get you the best end level gear, and if you dont' want to raid, screw you, that's to bad. I absolutely understand this wrecks your casual game.
I think FFA is a great choice for those that want exciting PvP, and I admit this wrecks the game for carebears.
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
I have just made a choice. That choice is that I will get right to developing a game that hangs on your every whim, is exactly tailored to you, and made so you are the only one that enjoys it. I will be getting to work on it in 5 minutes, should be done in about 6.
Why?
No where in this thread have I asked anyone to mak ea particular game for me.
I simply ask you don't pretend that asking for a casual game should make hard core players happy, because that is silly.
However, many posters continually do this.
Le5t's make a game where you can RAID, and get the most uber weapons and gear, and the raid takes like 8 hours and a100 people to do the raid, and it only drops ONE item, so it's very hardcore!
At the same time, thte game should be about "choice". So, you can play solo, and do a 10 minute dungeon by yourself, and get the exact same drop!
That would bew GREAT for EVERYOne, because now All players have th eCHOICE to play the kind of game they want to!
That, IMO, is kind of retarded, yet I see it all the time.
Cool. Now all you have to do is apply what you just said to yourself and we can finaly end this debate.
Seriously, that is a pretty elitist and hypocritical post. If you like "hardcore" content, then nobody has a right to tell you you're wrong. Well, shouldn't the same apply if you like "casual" content? It goes both ways. The ironic thing is that it's often the "hardcore" who want the gameplay they like forcefed upon others.
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
I have just made a choice. That choice is that I will get right to developing a game that hangs on your every whim, is exactly tailored to you, and made so you are the only one that enjoys it. I will be getting to work on it in 5 minutes, should be done in about 6.
Why?
No where in this thread have I asked anyone to mak ea particular game for me.
You are basicly saying that choice is for the casual, casuals do not want to work for anything, and that the only way for non-casuals to have fun is to take out all choice. I belive that you are delusional at best. To make things intresting I will limit the game I am making so that you all look like the same person, even if from diffrent factions. Friendly fire will be dealing the same damage to them as your foes. You will all have the same sword and same robe. FFA PvP is normal while everyone ganks everyone else you can probably find the time to post up a review of my game.
I just find the logic in this thread very one sided and full of double standards. Game should be about choice? As long as they are the choices you approve of and don't include anything that doesn't cater to your personal game tastes. That is the message I keep reading in this thread.
Exactly.
That is what BOTH sides are asking for, and what BOTh sides SHOULD ask for.
If you want a casual game, that has a worthless harder path in it, it's a casual game. It's ALWAYS goign to be a casual game, if it has a casual option. So you're not asking for choice, you're asking for a casual game.
If it's a hardcore game, there is no casual choice.
There's nothing wroing with liking a casual game, and wanting a casual game to play. Just say that, rather than saying your casual game is at the same time "hardcore". It's not.
Everyone wants the 'choice' they approve.
The solo crowd will let you group, as long as they can solo to the top very easily. That's a solo game. it's not about "choice" it's about being able to solo.
Just say that. There's nothign wroing with liking solo games.
there's no reason you have to bash people that like gorup games, if you like a solo game.
If you think raiding is unfair, just say you want a gam ewith no raiding.
That's a game with an "option" to get the same reward for not joining a raid.
That's not a raiding game anymore. SO dont' try to pretend that it is.
If that were the case, you would have claimed your observations were based on your experience with the game but instead you simply just said "Truth is truth" as if it didn't matter whether you played the game. Sorry, but I'm not buying it, kid.
The only ones who do buy it are those like happy. Disgrunted hardcores who cant flex their epeens in front of noobs in Ironforge anymore. That is their problem, nothing else.
The only people who think WoW is at the right difficulty are the wimps who were wiping on MC garbage in pre-expansion WOW.
Yeah, there's a huge difference in WoW now. Instead of the casuals being 3 instances behind wiping they are clearing the same stuff.
Fact is, newbs have to have crappy gear so they have something to work toward. So they can work toward becoming like good players that are in good guilds.
The difference between people who did AQ and MC was only skill, and nothing else. Too bad those people stuck in MC didn't want to actually get better at the game, and instead whined until Blizz catered to them by dumbing down the game and handing out free gear.
No where in this thread have I asked anyone to mak ea particular game for me.
I simply ask you don't pretend that asking for a casual game should make hard core players happy, because that is silly.
However, many posters continually do this.
Le5t's make a game where you can RAID, and get the most uber weapons and gear, and the raid takes like 8 hours and a100 people to do the raid, and it only drops ONE item, so it's very hardcore!
At the same time, thte game should be about "choice". So, you can play solo, and do a 10 minute dungeon by yourself, and get the exact same drop!
That would bew GREAT for EVERYOne, because now All players have th eCHOICE to play the kind of game they want to!
That, IMO, is kind of retarded, yet I see it all the time.
I probably do not think like you so I just do not understand, but what makes this "hardcore"?
This argument is always used by people that want an easy game against those that want something more challenging.
But the "choice" or "compromise" always benefits those wanting the easy game, never those wanting a challenge.
Look at any feature, and you can see this is the case.
FFA PvP. Well, SOME people don't want to be attacked all the time. So it would be better to have a "choice"! like turning on a switch if you want PVP.
How could this possibly benefit the FFA advocate? What does this player gain from this "choice" or compromise? Nothing.
Or, the player that wants a good grouping game.
Well, it should be about choice! You can still group, but we want to solo all the way to the level cap just as fast with the exact same rewards. See, we compromised, we let you group when you want to!
What does the person wanting a challenging grouping game gain from that? Nothing whatsoever.
I don't think choice or compromise can do anything but ruin the game for someone that wants a challenge. You will always, with such a "choice" or "compromise" make the game less challenging.
But do you make ti any MORE challenging for the other players wanting the easy game? Because that would be a compromise, where both sides give somethign up. And the answer is no. The side wanting an easy game, gets it. The side wanting a challenging game, gets a watered down easier game than they like.
I have just made a choice. That choice is that I will get right to developing a game that hangs on your every whim, is exactly tailored to you, and made so you are the only one that enjoys it. I will be getting to work on it in 5 minutes, should be done in about 6.
Why?
No where in this thread have I asked anyone to mak ea particular game for me.
You are basicly saying that choice is for the casual, casuals do not want to work for anything, and that the only way for non-casuals to have fun is to take out all choice. I belive that you are delusional at best. To make things intresting I will limit the game I am making so that you all look like the same person, even if from diffrent factions. Friendly fire will be dealing the same damage to them as your foes. You will all have the same sword and same robe. FFA PvP is normal while everyone ganks everyone else you can probably find the time to post up a review of my game.
No.
I'm saying that there is no "choice" for a game to be BOTh hardcore and casual at the same time.
If it's casual, it is casual. "hardcore" is agame mechanic that exists or does not exist. IF there is an easier path, the the gam eis not by definition "hardcore".
You cannot magically "choose" to make a game hardcore and at the same time casual.
You can only "choose" one.
Go ahead, choose one. That's fine.
But dont' try to pretend you can choose both. You cannot.
Why choose casual, and then denounce a hardcore player that doesn't lke casual games? iti's silly.
The real choice is between a hardcore game, and a casual game.
One by necessity, cancels the other out. That's the reality of the design and the game code. It cannot be any other way.
It really doesn't matter how many posts/rants/good crys happen over the casual v hardcore (though mostly on the "hardcore") side. Money talks and QQing walks. There is no point about crying endlesly on these forums about how casuals are ruining your game. PLay darkfall or MO if you hate casual gameplay so much, they have a very small supply of those.
What you are asking for is for developers to make the game you want in the setting you want, with fries and a coke. If some game that is coming up (I'm guessing SW:TOR) has you excited about the setting/some feature, but you hate the lack of enforced gping, TOUGH LUCK. These games belong to the developers who make them, not the people who think they can do better. If I hit the mark on SW:TOR, then the game isn't even in beta yet, good thing a little thing like comman sense and reason don't stop people from losing their mind over something they have never even seen or tried.
This debate is as pointless now as it was when EQ put out SoL. Developers will make the games they advertise (to a greater or lesser degree), if you don't like what they have done to some setting you think you have some form of intelectual squatters rights on, make your own company and buy the IP. Otherwise, stop whining on forums about what could have/should have been. This goes for SWG as well. Its dead, let it go.
No where in this thread have I asked anyone to mak ea particular game for me.
I simply ask you don't pretend that asking for a casual game should make hard core players happy, because that is silly.
However, many posters continually do this.
Le5t's make a game where you can RAID, and get the most uber weapons and gear, and the raid takes like 8 hours and a100 people to do the raid, and it only drops ONE item, so it's very hardcore!
At the same time, thte game should be about "choice". So, you can play solo, and do a 10 minute dungeon by yourself, and get the exact same drop!
That would bew GREAT for EVERYOne, because now All players have th eCHOICE to play the kind of game they want to!
That, IMO, is kind of retarded, yet I see it all the time.
I probably do not think like you so I just do not understand, but what makes this "hardcore"?
My understanding of "casual" is you can do it by yourself, in less than an hour. So you log on, play by yourself for one hour, then log off, and do this all they way to the level cap.
In the example above, you have to do an 8 hour raid, (it can't be done in one hour), adn a "RAID" means you can't do it by yourself. Plus, you can't just do 1 raid. It only drops 1 item. This means you have to do 100 raids, lasting 8 hours for each raid, to get the item. Because the raid requires 100 players.
Originally posted by IhmoteppIf it's a hardcore game, there is no casual choice.
There's nothing wroing with liking a casual game, and wanting a casual game to play. Just say that, rather than saying your casual game is at the same time "hardcore". It's not.
Everyone wants the 'choice' they approve.
The solo crowd will let you group, as long as they can solo to the top very easily. That's a solo game. it's not about "choice" it's about being able to solo.
Just say that. There's nothign wroing with liking solo games.
there's no reason you have to bash people that like gorup games, if you like a solo game.
If you think raiding is unfair, just say you want a gam ewith no raiding.
That's a game with an "option" to get the same reward for not joining a raid.
That's not a raiding game anymore. SO dont' try to pretend that it is.
Except you're putting words into people's mouths and acting like the victim when you're really the bully. You can have a game that appeases both hardcore and casual gamers. For example, let's look at Starcraft. Obviously there is a very hardcore competitive scene that, for all intents and purposes, is off-limits to most players due to the sheer skill requirement. Yet, that doesn't stop a slew of people from playing custom maps, skirmishes against the AI, campaign mode, etc. See, right there is a game that accomidates a variety of playstyles.
WoW, too, is a game like that. You want 25 man heroic raids with steep gear requirements, a good guild with deep knowledge of the encounters? You got it. In fact, only one guild has ever successfully finished ICC on heroic. On the other hand, you only have so much time on your hands? Okay, you can pug and get some fairly good gear but not on the same level as the hardcore guys. This is a fair compromise, and all casual players want is something fun to do when they reach the level cap. I don't ever recall casual players insisting that hardcore raiding content be removed from the game and all the content should be made fast and easy, yet hardcore players do just that and you want to act like a victim?
My point is, you don't have to have one or the other. You can have both types of content, and clearly their own levels of rewards, and that's basically what's happening in WoW. You want to act like the game is suddenly easy mode, okay then let's see your Heroic ICC achievement.
It really doesn't matter how many posts/rants/good crys happen over the casual v hardcore (though mostly on the "hardcore") side. Money talks and QQing walks. There is no point about crying endlesly on these forums about how casuals are ruining your game. PLay darkfall or MO if you hate casual gameplay so much, they have a very small supply of those.
What you are asking for is for developers to make the game you want in the setting you want, with fries and a coke. If some game that is coming up (I'm guessing SW:TOR) has you excited about the setting/some feature, but you hate the lack of enforced gping, TOUGH LUCK. These games belong to the developers who make them, not the people who think they can do better. If I hit the mark on SW:TOR, then the game isn't even in beta yet, good thing a little thing like comman sense and reason don't stop people from losing their mind over something they have never even seen or tried.
This debate is as pointless now as it was when EQ put out SoL. Developers will make the games they advertise (to a greater or lesser degree), if you don't like what they have done to some setting you think you have some form of intelectual squatters rights on, make your own company and buy the IP. Otherwise, stop whining on forums about what could have/should have been. This goes for SWG as well. Its dead, let it go.
That's not the actual topic of the thread.
the topic is does adding an easy path to a hard game, change the game or not?
Many posters claim that it does not change the game. That the game would still be "hardcore' even if there is an easier path to the goal.
They clam, for example, that if you can solo to get an item, instead of a Raid, that the raiders should be happy, because the game has not changed, and those people can still raid.
My claim is that this is not true, that in fact the game has changed.
The topic is not about subscription numbers, but if you wish ot make such a topic, I will respond to it.
the topic is does adding an easy path to a hard game, change the game or not?
Many posters claim that it does not change the game. That the game would still be "hardcore' even if there is an easier path to the goal.
They clam, for example, that if you can solo to get an item, instead of a Raid, that the raiders should be happy, because the game has not changed, and those people can still raid.
My claim is that this is not true, that in fact the game has changed.
The topic is not about subscription numbers, but if you wish ot make such a topic, I will respond to it.
Are you seriously saying that the rewards you get from soloing are the same as rewards from raids?
Except you're putting words into people's mouths and acting like the victim when you're really the bully. You can have a game that appeases both hardcore and casual gamers. For example, let's look at Starcraft. Obviously there is a very hardcore competitive scene that, for all intents and purposes, is off-limits to most players due to the sheer skill requirement. Yet, that doesn't stop a slew of people from playing custom maps, skirmishes against the AI, campaign mode, etc. See, right there is a game that accomidates a variety of playstyles.
I don't see anything "hardcore" or "casual" about Starcraft. It isa real time strategy game. you build troops, and attack.
You're either good at it, or you suck.
The game doesn't change. It's still an RTS, you still build the same troops, etc.
It is neither hardcore nor casual just because some people suck and some people don't.
In order to compare this to an MMORPG, you would have to change the features of the game so that peole that suck have a good chance of beating people that are good.
For example, giving people that suck 100 more troops or building points, than people that are good.
THAT would be similar to raiding to get good gear, or not raiding and getting the same gear.
Do I want to play against you with 100 extra troops because you suck? Not really.
I'd rather just play the game, and either you suck or you don't.
the topic is does adding an easy path to a hard game, change the game or not?
Many posters claim that it does not change the game. That the game would still be "hardcore' even if there is an easier path to the goal.
They clam, for example, that if you can solo to get an item, instead of a Raid, that the raiders should be happy, because the game has not changed, and those people can still raid.
My claim is that this is not true, that in fact the game has changed.
The topic is not about subscription numbers, but if you wish ot make such a topic, I will respond to it.
Are you seriously saying that the rewards you get from soloing are the same as rewards from raids?
No. I am not saying that at all.
I am saying that some people claim, that games should be about "choice".
So, you let solo players get the exact same items as raiders.
This would be fair to both players, because you let people raid, and you let people solo.
See? The game is great for everyone, because it's about "choice".
My point is that is bullshit.
That is a choice for solo players, not a choice raiders would make. So in the end it's not really about "choice" it's about what the solo players want.
Why then do they insist raiders should like the game, and if not , it's just because they don't like "choice"?
Perhaps, because they have not really given the raiders a "choice" they have just given them a shitty solo game and made some whiny argument that it's all about "choice".
Except you're putting words into people's mouths and acting like the victim when you're really the bully. You can have a game that appeases both hardcore and casual gamers. For example, let's look at Starcraft. Obviously there is a very hardcore competitive scene that, for all intents and purposes, is off-limits to most players due to the sheer skill requirement. Yet, that doesn't stop a slew of people from playing custom maps, skirmishes against the AI, campaign mode, etc. See, right there is a game that accomidates a variety of playstyles.
I don't see anything "hardcore" or "casual" about Starcraft. It isa real time strategy game. you build troops, and attack.
You're either good at it, or you suck.
The game doesn't change. It's still an RTS, you still build the same troops, etc.
It is neither hardcore nor casual just because some people suck and some people don't.
In order to compare this to an MMORPG, you would have to change the features of the game so that peole that suck have a good chance of beating people that are good.
For example, giving people that suck 100 more troops or building points, than people that are good.
THAT would be similar to raiding to get good gear, or not raiding and getting the same gear.
Do I want to play against you with 100 extra troops because you suck? Not really.
I'd rather just play the game, and either you suck or you don't.
You're saying all play Starcraft the same way. Let's be honest here, based on your response you haven't even played Starcraft, have you? Playing a high level 1v1 competitive match is a very difference experience than playing a 4v4 money map or any number of custom maps that change the rules considerably. You don't have to be a dedicated player to participate in the latter, but you do in the former.
Also, are you really saying that hardcore vs. casual in the MMO space is a measure of skill and not time? I'm sorry, but you're really fooling yourself if you think skill means all that much when it comes to MMOs. What makes hardcore players hardcore in MMOs is they are capable and willing to spend large chunks of their time gearing up and raiding to get the best stuff. It's not a function of skill, but of time.
Finally, you're contininuously insisting that anybody is suggesting that soloing should offer the same rewards as raiding. Are you delusional, per chance?
I am saying that some people claim, that games should be about "choice". Yes, people want choice because they don't want to be forced to participate in style of content that isn't suitable to them. In this case, casual players don't want to be forced to ignore their lives and responsibilities to have something to do at the endgame.
So, you let solo players get the exact same items as raiders. Nobody is saying that. Stop putting words in people's mouths.
This would be fair to both players, because you let people raid, and you let people solo. Logic doesn't really work on you, does it? That would only make sense if people raided because they simply enjoy raiding. The fact of the matter is that people raid because they want the rewards that come from it. If you gave the same rewards for raiding that you do for soloing you're actively marginalizing a playstyle which is not fair at all and why nobody is saying solo content should yield the same rewards as raid content.
See? The game is great for everyone, because it's about "choice".
My point is that is bullshit.
That is a choice for solo players, not a choice raiders would make. So in the end it's not really about "choice" it's about what the solo players want. The choice is giving players an option in participaing in endgame content that can revolve around their playstyle. If you want to do hardcore raiding, that's fine. If you don't, then there's less difficulty and less time taxing content at endgame also. That's the choice, Einstein. You don't have to give up your "hardcore" content. We just want something to do also, and we don't expect or want the same rewards as you since that would ultimately be unfair.
Why then do they insist raiders should like the game, and if not , it's just because they don't like "choice"? Again, show me where any casual game has insisted this.
Perhaps, because they have not really given the raiders a "choice" they have just given them a shitty solo game and made some whiny argument that it's all about "choice".
Except you're putting words into people's mouths and acting like the victim when you're really the bully. You can have a game that appeases both hardcore and casual gamers. For example, let's look at Starcraft. Obviously there is a very hardcore competitive scene that, for all intents and purposes, is off-limits to most players due to the sheer skill requirement. Yet, that doesn't stop a slew of people from playing custom maps, skirmishes against the AI, campaign mode, etc. See, right there is a game that accomidates a variety of playstyles.
I don't see anything "hardcore" or "casual" about Starcraft. It isa real time strategy game. you build troops, and attack.
You're either good at it, or you suck.
The game doesn't change. It's still an RTS, you still build the same troops, etc.
It is neither hardcore nor casual just because some people suck and some people don't.
In order to compare this to an MMORPG, you would have to change the features of the game so that peole that suck have a good chance of beating people that are good.
For example, giving people that suck 100 more troops or building points, than people that are good.
THAT would be similar to raiding to get good gear, or not raiding and getting the same gear.
Do I want to play against you with 100 extra troops because you suck? Not really.
I'd rather just play the game, and either you suck or you don't.
You're saying all play Starcraft the same way. Let's be honest here, based on your response you haven't even played Starcraft, have you? Playing a high level 1v1 competitive match is a very difference experience than playing a 4v4 money map or any number of custom maps that change the rules considerably. You don't have to be a dedicated player to participate in the latter, but you do in the former.
Also, are you really saying that hardcore vs. casual in the MMO space is a measure of skill and not time? I'm sorry, but you're really fooling yourself if you think skill means all that much when it comes to MMOs. What makes hardcore players hardcore in MMOs is they are capable and willing to spend large chunks of their time gearing up and raiding to get the best stuff. It's not a function of skill, but of time.
Finally, you're contininuously insisting that anybody is suggesting that soloing should offer the same rewards as raiding. Are you delusional, per chance?
We are discussing changing the features of the game, not the players.
You are trying to make an analogy.
To make a proper analogy, you would have ot change the features of Starcraft, like we are discussing chaning the features of an MMORPG.
For exampe, we are talking about changing the game from FFA Pvp, to RvR PvP, or a PvP consentual switch you turn on.
those are major changes in the game code, and very different games.
It's the difference between WoW and Darkfall.
How are you changing the game code of Starcraft? I don't see it.
wE'RE discussing players in the SAME game being happy.
In other words, you are talking about two different games, a hard 4v4 game and an easy 1v1 game.
Like WoW and Darkfall. Two different games.
We're discusssing make the players happy in the SAME game.
So you're 4x4 players have to be playing against the 1v1 players, or something like that. The can't be playing different game,s they ahve to be playing the same game.
@OP and supporters: So yet another thread about how the lame, weak, and worthless crowd are dragging down the big, strong, manly, macho and all around Ubermen?
It really doesn't matter how many posts/rants/good crys happen over the casual v hardcore (though mostly on the "hardcore") side. Money talks and QQing walks. There is no point about crying endlesly on these forums about how casuals are ruining your game. PLay darkfall or MO if you hate casual gameplay so much, they have a very small supply of those.
What you are asking for is for developers to make the game you want in the setting you want, with fries and a coke. If some game that is coming up (I'm guessing SW:TOR) has you excited about the setting/some feature, but you hate the lack of enforced gping, TOUGH LUCK. These games belong to the developers who make them, not the people who think they can do better. If I hit the mark on SW:TOR, then the game isn't even in beta yet, good thing a little thing like comman sense and reason don't stop people from losing their mind over something they have never even seen or tried.
This debate is as pointless now as it was when EQ put out SoL. Developers will make the games they advertise (to a greater or lesser degree), if you don't like what they have done to some setting you think you have some form of intelectual squatters rights on, make your own company and buy the IP. Otherwise, stop whining on forums about what could have/should have been. This goes for SWG as well. Its dead, let it go.
That's not the actual topic of the thread.
the topic is does adding an easy path to a hard game, change the game or not?
Many posters claim that it does not change the game. That the game would still be "hardcore' even if there is an easier path to the goal.
They clam, for example, that if you can solo to get an item, instead of a Raid, that the raiders should be happy, because the game has not changed, and those people can still raid.
My claim is that this is not true, that in fact the game has changed.
The topic is not about subscription numbers, but if you wish ot make such a topic, I will respond to it.
Correction, the topic of the thread is "Comprimise always benefits those wanting the easy way out, never those wanting a challenge."
1. False. Comprimise benefits all of those involved. Using WoW as an example, casual players wanted the ability to raid, but they couldn't since raids required people to dedicated 6-8 hours in one sitting in order to be completed. Blizzard instituted a save feature, which automatically saves your progress in a raid for one week. Therefore, a casual player can break up that 8 hour raid into 2 hour increments if they want. The hardcore benefit, because these people won't leave the game, meaning extra revenue = extra content. The hardcore aren't affected, because they can still do the content in 8 hour blocks if they want to.
2. False. Using grouping versus solo leveling as an example, players, not just casual, want a way to level up to max level without grouping for various reasons. So Blizzard creates WoW, which allows for solo questing to max level. The quests reward xp, some cash, and sometimes a Common or Uncommon item. Rarely do they offer a Rare item. Groupers still can group and get the same xp if not more xp by grinding mobs or quests, and get the same rewards, yet faster. Plus, they have group instances, which offer challenging mobs, that can't be soloed. These instances offer Rare and Epic items, with Uncommon items being trash loot. The hardcore isn't affected by the introduction of solo questing to max level, because groupers will still group. Only the people who prefer to solo will solo; people that would have left the game if the game was a group focused games.
So I stuck to the topic, the real topic, and proved you wrong. Here is where my post should end, but I'm fed up with the crap coming out of your mouth. First off, don't you dare open your mouth and try to speak for me and my fellow casual players. I've never once wanted a game to be unchallenging. I want a game to be challenging, period. Time sink does not equal a challenge. I'm also willing to work for what I get. Yet you open your mouth several times in this thread and try to tell me what I want. You tell me that I want the same rewards for doing less challenging things. WRONG! Now take a second and let that sink in. A casual player just told you that they want a challenge, and expect to be rewarded appropriately for the work they put into the game. Less challenging content should offer less rewards than more challenging conent. One last thing, no one twists your arm and forces you to play any certain way. Games are about fun, not rushing to max level, yet your only argument for not grouping when you want to, is because it's "faster" to just solo. Well so the fuck what. If you like to group, you'll group. End of story.
Now the whole FFA PvP thing. If there were safe zones, and players chose to use those safe zones, so what? That FFA PvP game just gained how many subscribers for allowing that? Why is subscriptions relevant? Because in your topic, you said that comprimise only benefits those wanting the easy way out. Well, more subscribers benefits FFA only players, because now the company has more money to invest into that FFA PvP game. People who want to FFA PvP will not go into the safe zones, meaning what? Meaning that only those wanting to PvP will be available for you to PvP against. What's that you said? You said, "FFA PvPers want to be able to kill people who aren't ready for a fight." How's that? You just said in your topic, that comprimise doesn't benefit those wanting a challenge. Which is more challenging then: Fighting an opponent that's ready for a fight or ganking someone who is harvesting? In short, FFA PvPers aren't looking for a challenge. They're looking for victims.
So in summary, I just put the truth to your lies.
/end thread
P.S. - Stop calling people carebears. That's like using a racial slur against a person who is of a different race than you. There is nothing synonomous between carebear and someone who doesn't want to be victimized for $15/mo. How about instead calling us normal people, and people that like FFA PvP sociopaths? That seems like a more appropriate name.
It really doesn't matter how many posts/rants/good crys happen over the casual v hardcore (though mostly on the "hardcore") side. Money talks and QQing walks. There is no point about crying endlesly on these forums about how casuals are ruining your game. PLay darkfall or MO if you hate casual gameplay so much, they have a very small supply of those.
What you are asking for is for developers to make the game you want in the setting you want, with fries and a coke. If some game that is coming up (I'm guessing SW:TOR) has you excited about the setting/some feature, but you hate the lack of enforced gping, TOUGH LUCK. These games belong to the developers who make them, not the people who think they can do better. If I hit the mark on SW:TOR, then the game isn't even in beta yet, good thing a little thing like comman sense and reason don't stop people from losing their mind over something they have never even seen or tried.
This debate is as pointless now as it was when EQ put out SoL. Developers will make the games they advertise (to a greater or lesser degree), if you don't like what they have done to some setting you think you have some form of intelectual squatters rights on, make your own company and buy the IP. Otherwise, stop whining on forums about what could have/should have been. This goes for SWG as well. Its dead, let it go.
That's not the actual topic of the thread.
the topic is does adding an easy path to a hard game, change the game or not?
Many posters claim that it does not change the game. That the game would still be "hardcore' even if there is an easier path to the goal.
They clam, for example, that if you can solo to get an item, instead of a Raid, that the raiders should be happy, because the game has not changed, and those people can still raid.
My claim is that this is not true, that in fact the game has changed.
The topic is not about subscription numbers, but if you wish ot make such a topic, I will respond to it.
Correction, the topic of the thread is "Comprimise always benefits those wanting the easy way out, never those wanting a challenge."
1. False. Comprimise benefits all of those involved. Using WoW as an example, casual players wanted the ability to raid, but they couldn't since raids required people to dedicated 6-8 hours in one sitting in order to be completed. Blizzard instituted a save feature, which automatically saves your progress in a raid for one week. Therefore, a casual player can break up that 8 hour raid into 2 hour increments if they want. The hardcore benefit, because these people won't leave the game, meaning extra revenue = extra content. The hardcore aren't affected, because they can still do the content in 8 hour blocks if they want to.
2. False. Using grouping versus solo leveling as an example, players, not just casual, want a way to level up to max level without grouping for various reasons. So Blizzard creates WoW, which allows for solo questing to max level. The quests reward xp, some cash, and sometimes a Common or Uncommon item. Rarely do they offer a Rare item. Groupers still can group and get the same xp if not more xp by grinding mobs or quests, and get the same rewards, yet faster. Plus, they have group instances, which offer challenging mobs, that can't be soloed. These instances offer Rare and Epic items, with Uncommon items being trash loot. The hardcore isn't affected by the introduction of solo questing to max level, because groupers will still group. Only the people who prefer to solo will solo; people that would have left the game if the game was a group focused games.
So I stuck to the topic, the real topic, and proved you wrong. Here is where my post should end, but I'm fed up with the crap coming out of your mouth. First off, don't you dare open your mouth and try to speak for me and my fellow casual players. I've never once wanted a game to be unchallenging. I want a game to be challenging, period. Time sink does not equal a challenge. I'm also willing to work for what I get. Yet you open your mouth several times in this thread and try to tell me what I want. You tell me that I want the same rewards for doing less challenging things. WRONG! Now take a second and let that sink in. A casual player just told you that they want a challenge, and expect to be rewarded appropriately for the work they put into the game. Less challenging content should offer less rewards than more challenging conent. One last thing, no one twists your arm and forces you to play any certain way. Games are about fun, not rushing to max level, yet your only argument for not grouping when you want to, is because it's "faster" to just solo. Well so the fuck what. If you like to group, you'll group. End of story.
Now the whole FFA PvP thing. If there were safe zones, and players chose to use those safe zones, so what? That FFA PvP game just gained how many subscribers for allowing that? Why is subscriptions relevant? Because in your topic, you said that comprimise only benefits those wanting the easy way out. Well, more subscribers benefits FFA only players, because now the company has more money to invest into that FFA PvP game. People who want to FFA PvP will not go into the safe zones, meaning what? Meaning that only those wanting to PvP will be available for you to PvP against. What's that you said? You said, "FFA PvPers want to be able to kill people who aren't ready for a fight." How's that? You just said in your topic, that comprimise doesn't benefit those wanting a challenge. Which is more challenging then: Fighting an opponent that's ready for a fight or ganking someone who is harvesting? In short, FFA PvPers aren't looking for a challenge. They're looking for victims.
So in summary, I just put the truth to your lies.
/end thread
P.S. - Stop calling people carebears. That's like using a racial slur against a person who is of a different race than you. There is nothing synonomous between carebear and someone who doesn't want to be victimized for $15/mo. How about instead calling us normal people, and people that like FFA PvP sociopaths? That seems like a more appropriate name.
I think WoW is a casual game.
PS you are a care bear. Not just a carebear, but a carebear with sparkles.
Comments
Cool. Now all you have to do is apply what you just said to yourself and we can finaly end this debate.
If you stand VERY still, and close your eyes, after a minute you can actually FEEL the universe revolving around PvP.
I have just made a choice. That choice is that I will get right to developing a game that hangs on your every whim, is exactly tailored to you, and made so you are the only one that enjoys it. I will be getting to work on it in 5 minutes, should be done in about 6.
Exocide
Who is asking for the trophy or even talking about the rewards?
If someone doesn't want to take part in your bike race, why should they be forced to do so? This isn't a discussion about epenis stroking and showing of trohpy loot. It is about gameplay. Games should offer people things they enjoy doing.
The bike race is there for people who do enjoy that type of play, just like casual play is there for those who enjoy that. If you don't like something you shouldn't be forced to do it.
Hardmode stuff is added to casual games all the time and casual players seem content with that.
Do casuals ALWAYS [in big bold capital absolutes] demand the same reward for avoiding content or is it just a few people that you are blowing out of proportion? It sounds like people in wow, for example, are content with there being hardmode encounters that the overwhelming majority of players will never see. Where are the riots demanding hardmode rewards for not doing the content?
I just find the logic in this thread very one sided and full of double standards. Game should be about choice? As long as they are the choices you approve of and don't include anything that doesn't cater to your personal game tastes. That is the message I keep reading in this thread.
I've always applied it to myself. I hate solo fest MMORPgs, and I dont' mind saying so.
I completely understand that adding good grouping mechanics to the game screws up yoru solo fest.
I certainly dont' mind if you want to play a solo fest game like WoW. Everyone likes different sorts of games.
I think Raiding should get you the best end level gear, and if you dont' want to raid, screw you, that's to bad. I absolutely understand this wrecks your casual game.
I think FFA is a great choice for those that want exciting PvP, and I admit this wrecks the game for carebears.
Why?
No where in this thread have I asked anyone to mak ea particular game for me.
I simply ask you don't pretend that asking for a casual game should make hard core players happy, because that is silly.
However, many posters continually do this.
Le5t's make a game where you can RAID, and get the most uber weapons and gear, and the raid takes like 8 hours and a100 people to do the raid, and it only drops ONE item, so it's very hardcore!
At the same time, thte game should be about "choice". So, you can play solo, and do a 10 minute dungeon by yourself, and get the exact same drop!
That would bew GREAT for EVERYOne, because now All players have th eCHOICE to play the kind of game they want to!
That, IMO, is kind of retarded, yet I see it all the time.
Seriously, that is a pretty elitist and hypocritical post. If you like "hardcore" content, then nobody has a right to tell you you're wrong. Well, shouldn't the same apply if you like "casual" content? It goes both ways. The ironic thing is that it's often the "hardcore" who want the gameplay they like forcefed upon others.
You are basicly saying that choice is for the casual, casuals do not want to work for anything, and that the only way for non-casuals to have fun is to take out all choice. I belive that you are delusional at best. To make things intresting I will limit the game I am making so that you all look like the same person, even if from diffrent factions. Friendly fire will be dealing the same damage to them as your foes. You will all have the same sword and same robe. FFA PvP is normal while everyone ganks everyone else you can probably find the time to post up a review of my game.
Exocide
Exactly.
That is what BOTH sides are asking for, and what BOTh sides SHOULD ask for.
If you want a casual game, that has a worthless harder path in it, it's a casual game. It's ALWAYS goign to be a casual game, if it has a casual option. So you're not asking for choice, you're asking for a casual game.
If it's a hardcore game, there is no casual choice.
There's nothing wroing with liking a casual game, and wanting a casual game to play. Just say that, rather than saying your casual game is at the same time "hardcore". It's not.
Everyone wants the 'choice' they approve.
The solo crowd will let you group, as long as they can solo to the top very easily. That's a solo game. it's not about "choice" it's about being able to solo.
Just say that. There's nothign wroing with liking solo games.
there's no reason you have to bash people that like gorup games, if you like a solo game.
If you think raiding is unfair, just say you want a gam ewith no raiding.
That's a game with an "option" to get the same reward for not joining a raid.
That's not a raiding game anymore. SO dont' try to pretend that it is.
The only people who think WoW is at the right difficulty are the wimps who were wiping on MC garbage in pre-expansion WOW.
Yeah, there's a huge difference in WoW now. Instead of the casuals being 3 instances behind wiping they are clearing the same stuff.
Fact is, newbs have to have crappy gear so they have something to work toward. So they can work toward becoming like good players that are in good guilds.
The difference between people who did AQ and MC was only skill, and nothing else. Too bad those people stuck in MC didn't want to actually get better at the game, and instead whined until Blizz catered to them by dumbing down the game and handing out free gear.
I probably do not think like you so I just do not understand, but what makes this "hardcore"?
Exocide
No.
I'm saying that there is no "choice" for a game to be BOTh hardcore and casual at the same time.
If it's casual, it is casual. "hardcore" is agame mechanic that exists or does not exist. IF there is an easier path, the the gam eis not by definition "hardcore".
You cannot magically "choose" to make a game hardcore and at the same time casual.
You can only "choose" one.
Go ahead, choose one. That's fine.
But dont' try to pretend you can choose both. You cannot.
Why choose casual, and then denounce a hardcore player that doesn't lke casual games? iti's silly.
The real choice is between a hardcore game, and a casual game.
One by necessity, cancels the other out. That's the reality of the design and the game code. It cannot be any other way.
It really doesn't matter how many posts/rants/good crys happen over the casual v hardcore (though mostly on the "hardcore") side. Money talks and QQing walks. There is no point about crying endlesly on these forums about how casuals are ruining your game. PLay darkfall or MO if you hate casual gameplay so much, they have a very small supply of those.
What you are asking for is for developers to make the game you want in the setting you want, with fries and a coke. If some game that is coming up (I'm guessing SW:TOR) has you excited about the setting/some feature, but you hate the lack of enforced gping, TOUGH LUCK. These games belong to the developers who make them, not the people who think they can do better. If I hit the mark on SW:TOR, then the game isn't even in beta yet, good thing a little thing like comman sense and reason don't stop people from losing their mind over something they have never even seen or tried.
This debate is as pointless now as it was when EQ put out SoL. Developers will make the games they advertise (to a greater or lesser degree), if you don't like what they have done to some setting you think you have some form of intelectual squatters rights on, make your own company and buy the IP. Otherwise, stop whining on forums about what could have/should have been. This goes for SWG as well. Its dead, let it go.
My understanding of "casual" is you can do it by yourself, in less than an hour. So you log on, play by yourself for one hour, then log off, and do this all they way to the level cap.
In the example above, you have to do an 8 hour raid, (it can't be done in one hour), adn a "RAID" means you can't do it by yourself. Plus, you can't just do 1 raid. It only drops 1 item. This means you have to do 100 raids, lasting 8 hours for each raid, to get the item. Because the raid requires 100 players.
So, this would be the oppoiste of "casual".
Except you're putting words into people's mouths and acting like the victim when you're really the bully. You can have a game that appeases both hardcore and casual gamers. For example, let's look at Starcraft. Obviously there is a very hardcore competitive scene that, for all intents and purposes, is off-limits to most players due to the sheer skill requirement. Yet, that doesn't stop a slew of people from playing custom maps, skirmishes against the AI, campaign mode, etc. See, right there is a game that accomidates a variety of playstyles.
WoW, too, is a game like that. You want 25 man heroic raids with steep gear requirements, a good guild with deep knowledge of the encounters? You got it. In fact, only one guild has ever successfully finished ICC on heroic. On the other hand, you only have so much time on your hands? Okay, you can pug and get some fairly good gear but not on the same level as the hardcore guys. This is a fair compromise, and all casual players want is something fun to do when they reach the level cap. I don't ever recall casual players insisting that hardcore raiding content be removed from the game and all the content should be made fast and easy, yet hardcore players do just that and you want to act like a victim?
My point is, you don't have to have one or the other. You can have both types of content, and clearly their own levels of rewards, and that's basically what's happening in WoW. You want to act like the game is suddenly easy mode, okay then let's see your Heroic ICC achievement.
That's not the actual topic of the thread.
the topic is does adding an easy path to a hard game, change the game or not?
Many posters claim that it does not change the game. That the game would still be "hardcore' even if there is an easier path to the goal.
They clam, for example, that if you can solo to get an item, instead of a Raid, that the raiders should be happy, because the game has not changed, and those people can still raid.
My claim is that this is not true, that in fact the game has changed.
The topic is not about subscription numbers, but if you wish ot make such a topic, I will respond to it.
Are you seriously saying that the rewards you get from soloing are the same as rewards from raids?
I don't see anything "hardcore" or "casual" about Starcraft. It isa real time strategy game. you build troops, and attack.
You're either good at it, or you suck.
The game doesn't change. It's still an RTS, you still build the same troops, etc.
It is neither hardcore nor casual just because some people suck and some people don't.
In order to compare this to an MMORPG, you would have to change the features of the game so that peole that suck have a good chance of beating people that are good.
For example, giving people that suck 100 more troops or building points, than people that are good.
THAT would be similar to raiding to get good gear, or not raiding and getting the same gear.
Do I want to play against you with 100 extra troops because you suck? Not really.
I'd rather just play the game, and either you suck or you don't.
No. I am not saying that at all.
I am saying that some people claim, that games should be about "choice".
So, you let solo players get the exact same items as raiders.
This would be fair to both players, because you let people raid, and you let people solo.
See? The game is great for everyone, because it's about "choice".
My point is that is bullshit.
That is a choice for solo players, not a choice raiders would make. So in the end it's not really about "choice" it's about what the solo players want.
Why then do they insist raiders should like the game, and if not , it's just because they don't like "choice"?
Perhaps, because they have not really given the raiders a "choice" they have just given them a shitty solo game and made some whiny argument that it's all about "choice".
You're saying all play Starcraft the same way. Let's be honest here, based on your response you haven't even played Starcraft, have you? Playing a high level 1v1 competitive match is a very difference experience than playing a 4v4 money map or any number of custom maps that change the rules considerably. You don't have to be a dedicated player to participate in the latter, but you do in the former.
Also, are you really saying that hardcore vs. casual in the MMO space is a measure of skill and not time? I'm sorry, but you're really fooling yourself if you think skill means all that much when it comes to MMOs. What makes hardcore players hardcore in MMOs is they are capable and willing to spend large chunks of their time gearing up and raiding to get the best stuff. It's not a function of skill, but of time.
Finally, you're contininuously insisting that anybody is suggesting that soloing should offer the same rewards as raiding. Are you delusional, per chance?
We are discussing changing the features of the game, not the players.
You are trying to make an analogy.
To make a proper analogy, you would have ot change the features of Starcraft, like we are discussing chaning the features of an MMORPG.
For exampe, we are talking about changing the game from FFA Pvp, to RvR PvP, or a PvP consentual switch you turn on.
those are major changes in the game code, and very different games.
It's the difference between WoW and Darkfall.
How are you changing the game code of Starcraft? I don't see it.
wE'RE discussing players in the SAME game being happy.
In other words, you are talking about two different games, a hard 4v4 game and an easy 1v1 game.
Like WoW and Darkfall. Two different games.
We're discusssing make the players happy in the SAME game.
So you're 4x4 players have to be playing against the 1v1 players, or something like that. The can't be playing different game,s they ahve to be playing the same game.
@OP and supporters: So yet another thread about how the lame, weak, and worthless crowd are dragging down the big, strong, manly, macho and all around Ubermen?
That was sarcasm btw....
Genius, if you're comparing two things that are the same then it's no longer an analogy.
Correction, the topic of the thread is "Comprimise always benefits those wanting the easy way out, never those wanting a challenge."
1. False. Comprimise benefits all of those involved. Using WoW as an example, casual players wanted the ability to raid, but they couldn't since raids required people to dedicated 6-8 hours in one sitting in order to be completed. Blizzard instituted a save feature, which automatically saves your progress in a raid for one week. Therefore, a casual player can break up that 8 hour raid into 2 hour increments if they want. The hardcore benefit, because these people won't leave the game, meaning extra revenue = extra content. The hardcore aren't affected, because they can still do the content in 8 hour blocks if they want to.
2. False. Using grouping versus solo leveling as an example, players, not just casual, want a way to level up to max level without grouping for various reasons. So Blizzard creates WoW, which allows for solo questing to max level. The quests reward xp, some cash, and sometimes a Common or Uncommon item. Rarely do they offer a Rare item. Groupers still can group and get the same xp if not more xp by grinding mobs or quests, and get the same rewards, yet faster. Plus, they have group instances, which offer challenging mobs, that can't be soloed. These instances offer Rare and Epic items, with Uncommon items being trash loot. The hardcore isn't affected by the introduction of solo questing to max level, because groupers will still group. Only the people who prefer to solo will solo; people that would have left the game if the game was a group focused games.
So I stuck to the topic, the real topic, and proved you wrong. Here is where my post should end, but I'm fed up with the crap coming out of your mouth. First off, don't you dare open your mouth and try to speak for me and my fellow casual players. I've never once wanted a game to be unchallenging. I want a game to be challenging, period. Time sink does not equal a challenge. I'm also willing to work for what I get. Yet you open your mouth several times in this thread and try to tell me what I want. You tell me that I want the same rewards for doing less challenging things. WRONG! Now take a second and let that sink in. A casual player just told you that they want a challenge, and expect to be rewarded appropriately for the work they put into the game. Less challenging content should offer less rewards than more challenging conent. One last thing, no one twists your arm and forces you to play any certain way. Games are about fun, not rushing to max level, yet your only argument for not grouping when you want to, is because it's "faster" to just solo. Well so the fuck what. If you like to group, you'll group. End of story.
Now the whole FFA PvP thing. If there were safe zones, and players chose to use those safe zones, so what? That FFA PvP game just gained how many subscribers for allowing that? Why is subscriptions relevant? Because in your topic, you said that comprimise only benefits those wanting the easy way out. Well, more subscribers benefits FFA only players, because now the company has more money to invest into that FFA PvP game. People who want to FFA PvP will not go into the safe zones, meaning what? Meaning that only those wanting to PvP will be available for you to PvP against. What's that you said? You said, "FFA PvPers want to be able to kill people who aren't ready for a fight." How's that? You just said in your topic, that comprimise doesn't benefit those wanting a challenge. Which is more challenging then: Fighting an opponent that's ready for a fight or ganking someone who is harvesting? In short, FFA PvPers aren't looking for a challenge. They're looking for victims.
So in summary, I just put the truth to your lies.
/end thread
P.S. - Stop calling people carebears. That's like using a racial slur against a person who is of a different race than you. There is nothing synonomous between carebear and someone who doesn't want to be victimized for $15/mo. How about instead calling us normal people, and people that like FFA PvP sociopaths? That seems like a more appropriate name.
I think WoW is a casual game.
PS you are a care bear. Not just a carebear, but a carebear with sparkles.