Just a thought that crossed my mind, for so-called hardcore gamers who like this aspect in MMO games. More often than not this concept results in the pioneer or starting batch of players on the respective gaming servers getting a head start. The strong usually stick together (ie. those who reach highest levels first, attain good gear etc). ganking is rampant, these peeps form guilds or their own groups, eventually only the strong characters are left, cos everyone else gets owned, and players generally do not like to get consistently owned. The new players find no way to cover the gap, and the few that manage to reach competitive levels or gear standards, majority end up JOINING the initial pioneer guilds/groups. Basically, in such games you get servers dominated and controlled by player guilds/groups.. new players have a crazy hard time..
Are there masochistic players who enjoy such types of games? Probably, but the number will never be sufficient to support a healthy community or provide enough revenue for a gaming company to give strong support, in today's context at least.
FFA PvP games fail, not because of the games, but because of the type of player they attract. Most people just don't find that level of dysfunction enjoyable in their chosen form of entertainment.
The failure isnt in the FFA PvP aspects of the game. Its in the combination of character development combined with the FFA PVP.
All players eventually tire of games, it happens. So you always have people leaving the game.
But you have to replace those players with new players and with making the game new for old players.
The problem is nobody wants to start playing a game now when everyone else currently playing has developed their charatcers far beyond the capability of nw players. Look at darkfall, they cant get new subs because ppl try the 10 day trial and get spanked so much they are often gone b4 the 10 days are up. ItEntering a game where players who has a years worth of development on you and can kill you is not fun.
EVE has been the most sucessful simply because the skillup system does allow for specialization which can make new players situationally usefull. They seem to be keeping their subscriber base up. However, even in EVE you hear people complaining about the new player game compared to the old players.
EVE pvp isent about skills you can fill out your shield/armour, Guns/missles and ship flying skills in about 3-6 months and be on the same page as people who have played the game for years. WHat you might not have though is the ISK to pay for your PVP activites. ISK is the only thing that seperates OLD players from new onse in EVE....
Bla bla bla cant start EVE now because im so far behind Bullshit, I have heard it to death.... it realy isent that big of a deal trust me.
It dosent take to long to become competative in EVE, but it takes some dedication to get the ISK to pay for PVP....
As I type this my ship is docked in a station with ZERO chance of getting murdered...
As long as I watch the screen there is little chance of me getting ganked while mining in high sec space or at least the cost of such an event would hurt the other guy more than me so it's not cost effective.
Security status, costs, and the skill training system ensure that high sec space is just safe enough for the sheep to continue playing, without them you'd not have eve online as it is today.
As I said EvE does restrict and punish anti social behavior.
As you sit docked at the station you may as well be at the login screen. It ain't exactly playing the game is it? If someone wants to kill you there's no punishment in that game that will stop them. Security status can be circumvented, costs are minimal, and training isn't even an issue. "Just safe enough" isn't completly safe. It attempts to punish anti social behavior, it doesn't always succeed.
You can't view the market, set up contracts, use science and industry, talk to friends, view auctions, or a bunch of other things at the login screen, but I can do all that from the 100% security of a station - all of those things are as much a part of the game as PvP ship combat.
Infact, I took a break a few minutes ago and made a delicious sandwich knowing that although my toon is in the scarey and dangerous universe of eve online which is chock-full of treachery and murder every where you go - he's 100% safe.
Give them time. ^^ Once DUST 514 gets going well, I bet they will eventually tie that in with walking in stations. With Concord star marines roaming around in power armor ^^ (I'm only half serious... ^^)
And for the record, whilst you might think it's dysfunctional that people go out and gank each other in their spare time, I think it's braindead that you go and kill the same NPC boss repeatedly. Actually, I'd rather wax my crevice with a beehive than sit in another raid, holding my dick and pressing frostbolt. How do you do it? How can you possibly find that entertaining? It never changes, and the gear you get is useless unless you actually go out and use it to kill someone. Oh wait, you use that gear to kill a stronger boss and get even better gear to kill yet another boss. What a hoot.
If I wanted to kill monsters repeatedly with my mates, I'd play diablo 2. What I want is the large-scale, persistent version of counterstrike. And if I'm shit at it, I want motivation to get better. Gear is gear. It comes, it goes, that's life. It shouldn't be the focus of your character, because quite frankly, there are better experiences to be had in gaming than circle-jerking over your new dress.
Cheers!
This is some of the BEST shit I have ever read You hit the nail here.
I think that most people just dont get that there is another way to play MMOs... They think they are all about what you youst described.. They dont get that there is a totaly diffrent, and mush more rewarding way to play these games. That actually make you feel that you are doing something more meaningfull then showing off your new EPIC SWORD...
I say If its not against a Human opponent then WHAT THE F is the point of playing a Massive multiplayer game???
And here you show that you CLEARLY "don't get" those who "don't get" your style of play EITHER.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with either preference. Sometimes I feel like FPS....then I go play CS Source or Painkiller. Sometimes....I don't wanna fuck with that and I want something DIFFERENT. BOTH styles of game need to exist. Not everyone thinks like you or enjoys what you do, and as much as you "don't get" them....they "don't get" you either. A good many PvE players have tried PvP in various forms and found it isn't to their liking. This is no different than YOU trying PvE and thinking it's boring or whatever.
For the guy arguing that stability is the dominant trend in human society:
If you honestly believe this, I... I really don't know what to tell you. Honestly, the people who taught you history failed you. We are the lucky ones, and we inherited a social contract that transcended those problems, but do you even understand how many centuries of fighting and famine mankind has had to endure to get here? When the Roman Empire collapsed in the west, Europe went into the dark ages, and literally did nothing for a thousand years. Many of the technological advances made by the Greeks and Romans were lost in the west (mathematics and astronomy, for example) and were instead advanced by the Arabs, who -- at that time -- were the most civilized state. Funny how things can change, yeah? The result of this is that the numbers we use today are Hindu-Arabic, and are not derived from latin-based languages.
Christ, the largest war in history was only 70 years ago, and even now there are US soldiers in the middle east, civil conflict in latin America, Africa, and the ex-Soviet states. Even the majority of Asia is barely held together by a thread of doctrine and cultural values. Ask someone from from the more unstable parts of Indonesia or the Philippines about social stability and they'll laugh in your face. That's not even mentioning places like Thailand, Cambodia (where civil war only ended a decade ago, and children are still losing limbs to landmines), Laos or Vietnam, or even smaller, lesser known states like Timor Leste. Hell, Korea and North Korea are still technically at war, as no peace treaty has been signed, which is why the South still conscripts young males.
Stability is a great thing, it really is, but it's transient, and not the natural order. I guess it's easy to think so when you live a life of comfort, but really, it's a product of affluence, and right now, we are the affluent ones. When you are poor and need to struggle to survive, people will do horrific things to each other. Violence is the result of competition.
As for games, they're amazing, because they teach us a lot about ourselves. Removing the threat of mortality and allowing people to do what they please is one of the greatest concepts ever devised, as long as people can divorce themselves and their egos from the character on the screen. The Goons know this, and that's why they go out of their way to cause trouble. They aren't nutcases; they know that at the end of the day, none of what they do matters, and that if people want to get hung up on a virtual spaceship that got destroyed, that's a cause for laughter and derision.
Your examples argue that stability is nessessary for human advancement. Even the wars that you cite were mostly forced to increase or maintain stability. Chaos stops the advancement of human society.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Ganking in most games is just for talentless gimps who can't handle a fair fight. They claim they love the FFA PvP and everyone who hates them is just a noob, but they know the score; we all do. People who get organised and go out and fight other organised groups - a la EVE - are true hardcore PvPers, but a lone level X going around killing level X-100 players is just a dick. Yea, there's probably a good psychological profile for this kinda person but I can't even be bothered to think that hard about them any more. I just avoid. Anyone whose stupid enough to shit in their own dinner isn't worth the time of day.
As for the reality thing: war in reality is never fair and never equal, that's why people generally tend to avoid conflict at all costs, unless they have a clear advantage. Even then there's an inherent degree of risk. The reason games of all sorts are popular is that they provide a challenge within a distinct framework of rules. Rules are the backbone to enjoyment of the game. Any ambiguity and people simply exploit it and the game is reduced to 'whose lucky enough to exploit first'. Once luck becomes a significant factor, unless you're a gambler, the fun is gone and it becomes a chore to avoid.
Some people can't understand why MMO gamers want to fight against NPC/mobs/whatever. Please. I hope this is just a kneejerk reaction to someone dissing your preferred playstyle because I can't believe anyone could be that naive. People coordinating their efforts and working together against their environment is a critical component of civilisation, just as much as working together against adversaries is. The two go hand in hand. In MMOs, some people simply prefer to focus on a know quantity. This makes the reward for completing a task - whether it's defeating a boss, or collecting some stuff - all the more quantifiable and thus easier to derive satisfaction from for many people. Best analogy I can come up with: winning at PvP is like sitting an exam only once (that's the PvP fun right there) and getting a pass/fail, winning at PvE is like having the option to take the exam as many times as you like and getting a pass/fail each time but also getting the exact percentage you scored (that's the PvE fun bit).
Anyone, that's enough common sense for one day...
Aryas
Playing: Ableton Live 8 ~ ragequitcancelsubdeletegamesmashcomputerkillself ~
The problem is not FFA PvP, the problem is the implementation of it and what else the game has to offer etc...
Most MMOs that have FFA PvP tho don't have areas, where it's safe to play the game or don't have any real consequences for the players who gank and grief others.
Darkfall for example is just mindless ganking and killing, whereas Mortal Online has atleast some harsh consequences for killing other players.
Now, EvE has FFA PvP too, but still you can play the game totally safe without ever engaging in PvP. You just stay in the safe and guraded areas, do some mission-running, crafting etc.
FFA PvP works, if it's implemented right.
Uh, no you can't. You can be attacked anywhere at any place in space in EVE.
Originally posted by Malcanis Originally posted by jrs77 The problem is not FFA PvP, the problem is the implementation of it and what else the game has to offer etc... Most MMOs that have FFA PvP tho don't have areas, where it's safe to play the game or don't have any real consequences for the players who gank and grief others. Darkfall for example is just mindless ganking and killing, whereas Mortal Online has atleast some harsh consequences for killing other players. Now, EvE has FFA PvP too, but still you can play the game totally safe without ever engaging in PvP. You just stay in the safe and guraded areas, do some mission-running, crafting etc. FFA PvP works, if it's implemented right.
Uh, no you can't. You can be attacked anywhere at any place in space in EVE. . Both of you are correct. . About 50% of Eve players never PvP. But someone could attack these 50% if they really, really wanted to.
In Eve, are there people who never PvP? People who remain in high security space all the time?
Sure, plenty. That is to say, that's what they try to do. But sometimes PVP comes to them anyway.
Also it depends on what you mean by "PvP". EVE PvP is not limited to direct combat. Some of the most vicious PvPers in the game never undock - the market traders. And if you dont think that counts as PvP, that means you dont understand the stakes these guys play for or the tactics they'll use.
And then of course there are people like GHSC, who bring down corps and even alliances, often without firing a shot.
In Eve, many people have multiple accounts. Do you need to buy more than one account to stay competitive? Do players with single ships win against multi-boxers?
I know plenty of people with more than one account; I hardly know any people who can fight with more than one account simultaneously. Most people multi-account for two reasons:
(1) To train skills faster. Two characters can train twice as fast as one (well not really, because you have to do support skills and learning skills on both accounts, so there is some overhead). So I can train one set of skills on one account, and another on the other.
(2) To be in two places at once. Having an alt scout is priceless...
Only a very few activities efficiently scale up with multiple accounts. Eg: ice mining. PvPing with 2 accounts is really hard. I used to sometimes bring an alt in a commandship for gang buffs, but I would put her in a safespot while I did the actual fighting with my main.
Your examples argue that stability is nessessary for human advancement. Even the wars that you cite were mostly forced to increase or maintain stability. Chaos stops the advancement of human society.
And how is that relevant? Yes, societies do better when they are stable -- no one is arguing anything to the contrary. We are saying that throughout history, the dominant paradigm has been one of instability. The average human experience even today, in the most peaceful time in history, is still one of ignorance, disease, famine and conflict. It may not seem like it in the west, but there are nearly 6 billion people in the world who aren't western, who have to face problems like civil instability and conflict every day. Most people do want to have some measure of control over their lives, which is what I think you're trying to say, but the harsh reality is that having such control is rare.
And the funny thing is, sometimes social stability doesn't lead to 'advancement' (which is such an arbitatrary term it is meaningless. How would you define human advancement, and why is it manifestly a good thing?). Politics and economics can equally stifle creativity and freedom as they can inspire it. The fact is, broadly sweeping generalisations like the one you made tend to be ill informed and superficial.
Your examples argue that stability is nessessary for human advancement. Even the wars that you cite were mostly forced to increase or maintain stability. Chaos stops the advancement of human society.
And how is that relevant? Yes, societies do better when they are stable -- no one is arguing anything to the contrary. We are saying that throughout history, the dominant paradigm has been one of instability. The average human experience even today, in the most peaceful time in history, is still one of ignorance, disease, famine and conflict. It may not seem like it in the west, but there are nearly 6 billion people in the world who aren't western, who have to face problems like civil instability and conflict every day. Most people do want to have some measure of control over their lives, which is what I think you're trying to say, but the harsh reality is that having such control is rare.
And the funny thing is, sometimes social stability doesn't lead to 'advancement' (which is such an arbitatrary term it is meaningless. How would you define human advancement, and why is it manifestly a good thing?). Politics and economics can equally stifle creativity and freedom as they can inspire it. The fact is, broadly sweeping generalisations like the one you made tend to be ill informed and superficial.
That's what the person was trying to convey originally.
You diminished one of his arguing points by affirming his entire premise...
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Pure "freedom" gameplay mechanics are nothing more than a myth.
By giving certain individuals the "freedom" to do as they wish, aka PKing other players on a whim, these players then turn around and strip the freedom from other players who they prey on.
This is why FFA PvP games are not wholey popular with the masses. The majority of gamers don't want to have their gameplay dictated by the whims of another player on a virtual power trip.
Which is ironic because many of the people who want FFA PvP games want to be 'wolves' amongst the 'sheep'. Of course, with all of the choices in MMOs these days, all of the 'sheep' simply avoid playing where the 'wolves' do. Of course, then the 'wolves' complain that they have noone to prey on, because they certainly don't want to be challenged fighting each other.
Pure "freedom" gameplay mechanics are nothing more than a myth.
QFT. The only "game" I know of that provides total freedom, is SecondLife. It's not really a game, but then I think that example supports your statement about freedom in gameplay.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -Winston Churchill
Pure "freedom" gameplay mechanics are nothing more than a myth.
By giving certain individuals the "freedom" to do as they wish, aka PKing other players on a whim, these players then turn around and strip the freedom from other players who they prey on.
This is why FFA PvP games are not wholey popular with the masses. The majority of gamers don't want to have their gameplay dictated by the whims of another player on a virtual power trip.
Basically the crux of it. People want to play in a massive online world, but they don't want anything to do with other players unless they choose to. Reflective of the real world actually. All the people who think they have a special right to retribution because their "feelings" were hurt. The reality is, your feelings are subjective, not objective. Just because you cry the loudest when your virtual pixels are killed, doesn't mean you are justified in equivalent retribution. This is the same crowd that hates MMOs without Dev safety nets because they are afraid of challenges.
Those who want to actually interact with other players on all levels in a dynamic virtual world are the real MMO gamers, the original ones. Everyone else is just looking for a single player experience with a consensual multiplayer side feature. Nothing wrong with that, but don't think you're playing in a real MMO for a second.
Which is ironic because many of the people who want FFA PvP games want to be 'wolves' amongst the 'sheep'. Of course, with all of the choices in MMOs these days, all of the 'sheep' simply avoid playing where the 'wolves' do. Of course, then the 'wolves' complain that they have noone to prey on, because they certainly don't want to be challenged fighting each other.
Some people are like this, but not all. Not all wolves are as fickle minded as you sheep try to make them out to be. I personally prefer a wolves v wolves environment only. Furthermore, there is no real difference between the two, just people who choose to be weak and dependent on others and those who enjoy a challenge and survival. That being said, the only people who make this argument are those who are usually guildless or have poor understandings of metagaming. PvP will never be like UO because metagaming has changed so significantly. The whole PK v anti PK are ancient history. Probably a good thing.
Pure "freedom" gameplay mechanics are nothing more than a myth.
By giving certain individuals the "freedom" to do as they wish, aka PKing other players on a whim, these players then turn around and strip the freedom from other players who they prey on.
This is why FFA PvP games are not wholey popular with the masses. The majority of gamers don't want to have their gameplay dictated by the whims of another player on a virtual power trip.
Basically the crux of it. People want to play in a massive online world, but they don't want anything to do with other players unless they choose to. Reflective of the real world actually. All the people who think they have a special right to retribution because their "feelings" were hurt. The reality is, your feelings are subjective, not objective. Just because you cry the loudest when your virtual pixels are killed, doesn't mean you are justified in equivalent retribution. This is the same crowd that hates MMOs without Dev safety nets because they are afraid of challenges.
Those who want to actually interact with other players on all levels in a dynamic virtual world are the real MMO gamers, the original ones. Everyone else is just looking for a single player experience with a consensual multiplayer side feature. Nothing wrong with that, but don't think you're playing in a real MMO for a second.
Which is ironic because many of the people who want FFA PvP games want to be 'wolves' amongst the 'sheep'. Of course, with all of the choices in MMOs these days, all of the 'sheep' simply avoid playing where the 'wolves' do. Of course, then the 'wolves' complain that they have noone to prey on, because they certainly don't want to be challenged fighting each other.
Some people are like this, but not all. Not all wolves are as fickle minded as you sheep try to make them out to be. I personally prefer a wolves v wolves environment only. Furthermore, there is no real difference between the two, just people who choose to be weak and dependent on others and those who enjoy a challenge and survival. That being said, the only people who make this argument are those who are usually guildless or have poor understandings of metagaming. PvP will never be like UO because metagaming has changed so significantly. The whole PK v anti PK are ancient history. Probably a good thing.
It's also a problem of perspective. The PKers like to think of this as a 'wolf vs sheep' contest. The non-PvP players view this as a 'person vs parasite' and see nothing noble in it. So if the game offers nothing worthwile to justify putting up with the 'parasites' then the other players will stop playing the game. The reason why EVE can thrive is because it offers so much more beside base PvP. Players who don't care much for PvP can still get months of enjoyment out of the game.
Pure "freedom" gameplay mechanics are nothing more than a myth.
By giving certain individuals the "freedom" to do as they wish, aka PKing other players on a whim, these players then turn around and strip the freedom from other players who they prey on.
This is why FFA PvP games are not wholey popular with the masses. The majority of gamers don't want to have their gameplay dictated by the whims of another player on a virtual power trip.
Which is ironic because many of the people who want FFA PvP games want to be 'wolves' amongst the 'sheep'. Of course, with all of the choices in MMOs these days, all of the 'sheep' simply avoid playing where the 'wolves' do. Of course, then the 'wolves' complain that they have noone to prey on, because they certainly don't want to be challenged fighting each other.
Exactly. Once the number of game options expands, the CareBears (like me) migrate to games that do not allow ganking and griefing(like WoW's PvE realms). That leaves the gankers to prey on each other. Once they turn on each other, the gankers have to fight other PvP types, and many will not like that at all... ^^ That leads to the second wave of migration. Leaving the Dev's a choice. Change their game rule set, or go out of business.
The ironic aspect of this, is that the gankers bring it upon themselves. Its their own actions that confine their game choices to a narrow niche. Given that these games cost millions and millions (of other peoples money) to create, their own actions mean that they have ever fewer games with the rule set they prefer. The cycle then continues.
I have seen guilds and alliances try to police FFA servers. These guys like FFA PvP but want the MMO to have realistic consequences to ganking. I take my helmet of to them, but I am not sure that ever works in the long term. If a MMO has a FFA pvp server it will start with a good population but will be one of the lowest in a year or two's time.
Has anybody actually named a game with FFA PvP that failed because it had FFA PvP as opposed to some other element that was broken in the game?
Nope and not that suprising.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
So........ The summary of the last 30 or so posts is:
EVE PVP = WIN
DARKFALL PVP = FAIL
MO PVP = WTF
lol right? If so, I agree.
Bullshit. Darkfall PvP - win... There are more and more players in the game, btw...
I am sorry but in the context of this topic and how it has evolved TheHatter is quite right. You see what is being said is that a successfull FFA PvP game is more than being about going wherever you want to gank someone else like say a newbie. It is about making a ballance between PvP and non PvP stuff. For example in EvE you can kill wherever you want [even where newbies first log on to nlearn how to play] However some sections of EvE while not preventing this behavior does provide consiquences to such an action [as in if you fire on a newbie the NPC police arrive to gank you, also for 15 minuites the one you ganked can kill you without NPC intervention. So that newbie you killed may just be an alt of a much tougher oponent.
Point is in a succsesfull FFA PvP game while killing players is a very important part [the main part i would say], it is not the only eliment needed [such as safeish places and a other things to do.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Has anybody actually named a game with FFA PvP that failed because it had FFA PvP as opposed to some other element that was broken in the game?
Nope and not that suprising.
That depends. I'd have mentioned Shadow Bane, or some such, but then it would have been claimed that it wasn't FFA that sank it. So why bother? This argument is never going to be settled here. Thats why market dynamics are going to settle it.
That's what the person was trying to convey originally.
You diminished one of his arguing points by affirming his entire premise...
Sigh, this is my last post in this thread. This is what was posted originally:
"There has almost never been section of land in the real world that operates like the EvE-verse. Countries form and stability is encouraged so that production may proceed. Factions form and "Us vs Them" becomes the norm. There is a reason being a traitor is reserved for the 9th circle of hell in Dante's Inferno."
And as I and others pointed out, it just plainly isn't true. Of course stability is desirable; that doesn't mean that instability is somehow unnatural. Throughout history, instability has arguably been more prevalent than any form of stability, particularly on the level of say, countries. EVE plays out the same way that unregulated industries such as the drug trade do. Without artificial restrictions, players in competition tend to wipe each other out, which is exactly what you see in the drug trade, civil wars, and in EVE. This isn't unnatural, and is exactly what happened for millenia until we invented modern government systems. Hell, even the concept of a country is a relatively new idea.
The thing is, this instability makes for more compelling gameplay in an artificial world where you don't have to worry about permanent death. It means there are consequences for your actions (other players ganging up on you, lost wealth etc), and is -- for many -- a more interesting experience than farming PVE bosses. This is the divide we are seeing in the MMO market; those who want a simulated world where what they do actually matters, and those who want a more social experience with guaranteed progression, and where your phat lootz can't be stolen by some random window licker. The kicker though is that both are valid forms of entertainment in their own right, and both have markets.
Comments
Well said, period.
Did you even read the last paragraph i wrote?
Give them time. ^^ Once DUST 514 gets going well, I bet they will eventually tie that in with walking in stations. With Concord star marines roaming around in power armor ^^ (I'm only half serious... ^^)
And here you show that you CLEARLY "don't get" those who "don't get" your style of play EITHER.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with either preference. Sometimes I feel like FPS....then I go play CS Source or Painkiller. Sometimes....I don't wanna fuck with that and I want something DIFFERENT. BOTH styles of game need to exist. Not everyone thinks like you or enjoys what you do, and as much as you "don't get" them....they "don't get" you either. A good many PvE players have tried PvP in various forms and found it isn't to their liking. This is no different than YOU trying PvE and thinking it's boring or whatever.
To each....their own.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Your examples argue that stability is nessessary for human advancement. Even the wars that you cite were mostly forced to increase or maintain stability. Chaos stops the advancement of human society.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Ganking in most games is just for talentless gimps who can't handle a fair fight. They claim they love the FFA PvP and everyone who hates them is just a noob, but they know the score; we all do. People who get organised and go out and fight other organised groups - a la EVE - are true hardcore PvPers, but a lone level X going around killing level X-100 players is just a dick. Yea, there's probably a good psychological profile for this kinda person but I can't even be bothered to think that hard about them any more. I just avoid. Anyone whose stupid enough to shit in their own dinner isn't worth the time of day.
As for the reality thing: war in reality is never fair and never equal, that's why people generally tend to avoid conflict at all costs, unless they have a clear advantage. Even then there's an inherent degree of risk. The reason games of all sorts are popular is that they provide a challenge within a distinct framework of rules. Rules are the backbone to enjoyment of the game. Any ambiguity and people simply exploit it and the game is reduced to 'whose lucky enough to exploit first'. Once luck becomes a significant factor, unless you're a gambler, the fun is gone and it becomes a chore to avoid.
Some people can't understand why MMO gamers want to fight against NPC/mobs/whatever. Please. I hope this is just a kneejerk reaction to someone dissing your preferred playstyle because I can't believe anyone could be that naive. People coordinating their efforts and working together against their environment is a critical component of civilisation, just as much as working together against adversaries is. The two go hand in hand. In MMOs, some people simply prefer to focus on a know quantity. This makes the reward for completing a task - whether it's defeating a boss, or collecting some stuff - all the more quantifiable and thus easier to derive satisfaction from for many people. Best analogy I can come up with: winning at PvP is like sitting an exam only once (that's the PvP fun right there) and getting a pass/fail, winning at PvE is like having the option to take the exam as many times as you like and getting a pass/fail each time but also getting the exact percentage you scored (that's the PvE fun bit).
Anyone, that's enough common sense for one day...
Aryas
Playing: Ableton Live 8
~ ragequitcancelsubdeletegamesmashcomputerkillself ~
Uh, no you can't. You can be attacked anywhere at any place in space in EVE.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
.
Both of you are correct.
.
About 50% of Eve players never PvP. But someone could attack these 50% if they really, really wanted to.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
Sure, plenty. That is to say, that's what they try to do. But sometimes PVP comes to them anyway.
Also it depends on what you mean by "PvP". EVE PvP is not limited to direct combat. Some of the most vicious PvPers in the game never undock - the market traders. And if you dont think that counts as PvP, that means you dont understand the stakes these guys play for or the tactics they'll use.
And then of course there are people like GHSC, who bring down corps and even alliances, often without firing a shot.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I know plenty of people with more than one account; I hardly know any people who can fight with more than one account simultaneously. Most people multi-account for two reasons:
(1) To train skills faster. Two characters can train twice as fast as one (well not really, because you have to do support skills and learning skills on both accounts, so there is some overhead). So I can train one set of skills on one account, and another on the other.
(2) To be in two places at once. Having an alt scout is priceless...
Only a very few activities efficiently scale up with multiple accounts. Eg: ice mining. PvPing with 2 accounts is really hard. I used to sometimes bring an alt in a commandship for gang buffs, but I would put her in a safespot while I did the actual fighting with my main.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
And how is that relevant? Yes, societies do better when they are stable -- no one is arguing anything to the contrary. We are saying that throughout history, the dominant paradigm has been one of instability. The average human experience even today, in the most peaceful time in history, is still one of ignorance, disease, famine and conflict. It may not seem like it in the west, but there are nearly 6 billion people in the world who aren't western, who have to face problems like civil instability and conflict every day. Most people do want to have some measure of control over their lives, which is what I think you're trying to say, but the harsh reality is that having such control is rare.
And the funny thing is, sometimes social stability doesn't lead to 'advancement' (which is such an arbitatrary term it is meaningless. How would you define human advancement, and why is it manifestly a good thing?). Politics and economics can equally stifle creativity and freedom as they can inspire it. The fact is, broadly sweeping generalisations like the one you made tend to be ill informed and superficial.
That's what the person was trying to convey originally.
You diminished one of his arguing points by affirming his entire premise...
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Pure "freedom" gameplay mechanics are nothing more than a myth.
By giving certain individuals the "freedom" to do as they wish, aka PKing other players on a whim, these players then turn around and strip the freedom from other players who they prey on.
This is why FFA PvP games are not wholey popular with the masses. The majority of gamers don't want to have their gameplay dictated by the whims of another player on a virtual power trip.
Which is ironic because many of the people who want FFA PvP games want to be 'wolves' amongst the 'sheep'. Of course, with all of the choices in MMOs these days, all of the 'sheep' simply avoid playing where the 'wolves' do. Of course, then the 'wolves' complain that they have noone to prey on, because they certainly don't want to be challenged fighting each other.
QFT. The only "game" I know of that provides total freedom, is SecondLife. It's not really a game, but then I think that example supports your statement about freedom in gameplay.
It's also a problem of perspective. The PKers like to think of this as a 'wolf vs sheep' contest. The non-PvP players view this as a 'person vs parasite' and see nothing noble in it. So if the game offers nothing worthwile to justify putting up with the 'parasites' then the other players will stop playing the game. The reason why EVE can thrive is because it offers so much more beside base PvP. Players who don't care much for PvP can still get months of enjoyment out of the game.
Exactly. Once the number of game options expands, the CareBears (like me) migrate to games that do not allow ganking and griefing(like WoW's PvE realms). That leaves the gankers to prey on each other. Once they turn on each other, the gankers have to fight other PvP types, and many will not like that at all... ^^ That leads to the second wave of migration. Leaving the Dev's a choice. Change their game rule set, or go out of business.
The ironic aspect of this, is that the gankers bring it upon themselves. Its their own actions that confine their game choices to a narrow niche. Given that these games cost millions and millions (of other peoples money) to create, their own actions mean that they have ever fewer games with the rule set they prefer. The cycle then continues.
Has anybody actually named a game with FFA PvP that failed because it had FFA PvP as opposed to some other element that was broken in the game?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I love FFA PvP if it's done right and I don't consider myself a "hardcore" MMO player at all.
I just enjoy fighting other players as opposed to AI all day. After all it is just a game, I'm not going to cry if someone ganks me.
I have seen guilds and alliances try to police FFA servers. These guys like FFA PvP but want the MMO to have realistic consequences to ganking. I take my helmet of to them, but I am not sure that ever works in the long term. If a MMO has a FFA pvp server it will start with a good population but will be one of the lowest in a year or two's time.
Bullshit. Darkfall PvP - win... There are more and more players in the game, btw...
Nope and not that suprising.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
I am sorry but in the context of this topic and how it has evolved TheHatter is quite right. You see what is being said is that a successfull FFA PvP game is more than being about going wherever you want to gank someone else like say a newbie. It is about making a ballance between PvP and non PvP stuff. For example in EvE you can kill wherever you want [even where newbies first log on to nlearn how to play] However some sections of EvE while not preventing this behavior does provide consiquences to such an action [as in if you fire on a newbie the NPC police arrive to gank you, also for 15 minuites the one you ganked can kill you without NPC intervention. So that newbie you killed may just be an alt of a much tougher oponent.
Point is in a succsesfull FFA PvP game while killing players is a very important part [the main part i would say], it is not the only eliment needed [such as safeish places and a other things to do.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
That depends. I'd have mentioned Shadow Bane, or some such, but then it would have been claimed that it wasn't FFA that sank it. So why bother? This argument is never going to be settled here. Thats why market dynamics are going to settle it.
Sigh, this is my last post in this thread. This is what was posted originally:
"There has almost never been section of land in the real world that operates like the EvE-verse. Countries form and stability is encouraged so that production may proceed. Factions form and "Us vs Them" becomes the norm. There is a reason being a traitor is reserved for the 9th circle of hell in Dante's Inferno."
And as I and others pointed out, it just plainly isn't true. Of course stability is desirable; that doesn't mean that instability is somehow unnatural. Throughout history, instability has arguably been more prevalent than any form of stability, particularly on the level of say, countries. EVE plays out the same way that unregulated industries such as the drug trade do. Without artificial restrictions, players in competition tend to wipe each other out, which is exactly what you see in the drug trade, civil wars, and in EVE. This isn't unnatural, and is exactly what happened for millenia until we invented modern government systems. Hell, even the concept of a country is a relatively new idea.
The thing is, this instability makes for more compelling gameplay in an artificial world where you don't have to worry about permanent death. It means there are consequences for your actions (other players ganging up on you, lost wealth etc), and is -- for many -- a more interesting experience than farming PVE bosses. This is the divide we are seeing in the MMO market; those who want a simulated world where what they do actually matters, and those who want a more social experience with guaranteed progression, and where your phat lootz can't be stolen by some random window licker. The kicker though is that both are valid forms of entertainment in their own right, and both have markets.