personally, i hate pvp and getting ganked. I tryed lineage 2 and loved the game but hated the open pvp, its not that i lost all my battels i didnt, i won 75% of them even fighting higher lvl chars I just dont like pvp. So i have swoar off all pvp games. I think that children shouldnt be aloud to play them either because it teaches them to be mean and disrespectful. I think the corps which develop games should make both non pvp and pvp servers when they launch a game and give the players a choise. if the dont they are loosing out on a big part of the market and i hate forced pvp. i think wow has taken this way to far on there pve servers its one of the reasons i quit playing wow, to much pvp on the pve servers. even though its not really forced your fellow guild mates try and talk you into it so they can get better armor if your faction has the battel grounds. so i am looking foward to eq next its not supposed to have pvp, cant wate.
the only game i ever really did unconsensual pvp was EVE (low sec pirate). I think it's because there are specific areas where there is open pvp, so people in these areas know and willingly put themselves in danger, which i guess makes me feel better about killing people. Other games i usually hunt gankers and griefers and stick up for the lower levels, either way though i always perfer pvp servers. Adds to the atmosphere, depth, and random surprise factor for me.
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
Well forced PVP is why most of my guild bailed on aion. We were all for pvp but when we reached 35+ we were constantly getting ganked by higher levels in heron. I got ganked 7 times repeatedly by a level 50 sorc and sin. I had no chance as a cleric, no other players were around or would help so no choice but to log out that toon. Happened just about everyday I got to level 39 then the really bad xp curved and ganking making kill time longer and unproductive, I had to go liek teh rest of my guild. Forced PVP is ganking and its usually 1 sided. Folks try to make others interested in teh fight buy if they dont want it you just see them leave. I wonder how long aion will be online?
I don't understand when people get upset about forced PVP when they knew it was in the game. Also if your getting ganked...call your friends or your faction...get a grou to kill the ganker and destroy his kisk. That was the fun of pvp..retaliation! I've been gaked before while questing in Aion...all I had to do was alert LFG and 20 people come running. If you had no one to help and no legionmates..maybe that was the problem.
Ganking is one of the reasons I'm not playing faction based PvP games. Like you Adam, it pisses me off extremely and life's too short to be mad at some teenage kid that aroused when he kills -20 levels below himself...
You sir are a certifiable genius. You don't enjoy open pvp games so you DO NOT play them. My hat is off to you. If only other people could follow your shining example of simple reasoning.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
I call it having respect for the people I'm about to fight, it's the same reason I don't fight people in fencing, SCA, etc until they at least have a damn stick in their hands. Because that's the difference between 'fighting' someone and 'murdering' them.
But again, you just "dont' get it".
You are basically saying "I see it from my point of view through my glasses and this is a universal truth".
For those playes who willingly sign into these games, It doesn't matter.
I will say it again.
It just doesn't matter.
If I'm in a pvp game with full ffa pvp and someone 4000 levels above me ganks me, it doesn't matter. There is no harm therefore there is no foul. Why? Because I expect it and have bought into the fact that it is a part of the game. I have made a conscious decision to sign into this type of game and agree to its rulesets.
As far as the player interaction, you are, again, seeing it through one side. I can't disagree that there is whining, complaining, insulting, etc. But those are just horrible players and probably horrible people. Or people who allow themselves to wallow in horrible behavior.
But as I have said, killing low lvl players will eventually bring high level players. If a clan is smart they will use it as an ambush.
So let's say I was inclined to kill low lvl players. To be perfectly honest, the only time I've ever done so with my higher lvl characer is when I've killed lower lvl pk'ers.
But lets' say I want to strike a blow against a clan/alliance. Let's say "shot heard 'round the world". I could easily find that clan's low lvl players, do some player killing, draw their higher levels and have an ambush waiting. And thus the war starts.
And you know what?
In a game like Lineage 2 where one can be a saint or sinner, it still is a good thing. If a clan or set of players wants to kill low lvl players, wants to take control of Talking Island then they essentially show their quality. They are then automatically declaring their "side" and it even makes it easier for players who don't condone this type of thing to declare war.
PvP in an open world requires conflict. It's ok for players to be the bad guys. And since there are a lot of players of questinable moral fiber who want to adopt the sinner mentality it makes it all the easier.
Would it be better if all players treated everyone with respect? sure. But that's not the game.
If a clan wants to take over a hunting area by wiping out any lower level players not of their clan/alliance then that is "ok". Part of a game like Lineage 2 is controlling hunting areas. This causes conflict and this causes war.
Now again, I agree that there are a lot of players who can dish it out but can't take it. I've had players pk me only for me to do the same back to them and they whined and cried like there was no tomorrow. But I'm not going to look down on a system because there are some poor players.
What it comes down to is if you don't like that system, don't play. It's not fair to other people who are willing to be in a game where one can make their own destiny, become a saint or sinner by their own actions, to have players decry the system that the game designers put in place.
An example of one player who became somewhat infamous was a player named EvilSeed on Hindemith server. He woulnd't just try to pk lower lvl players but he would target lower lvl players more often than not.
And you know what? He never badmouthed anyone he killed, he was always respectful, no name calling just did what he did. if he was killed then that was no big deal either, it was part of the fun.
So I say "if you don't like being tackled then don't play tackle football" and you say "more like don't play a game where you are being tackled like by a mack truck" (paraphrase) and I say to that "it still doesnt' matter".
If I sign into these games and I'm killed by an entire alliance then it's ok by me. I've had some extremely fun times trying to get by pk'ers without being seen and felt it made the world more alive, more robust with different characters and factions.
So if other players don't care about being pk'ed by higher lvl players then why not just let us play these games without trying to change them.
You have the choice not to sign in. Let those of us who dont' care about this system have it.
I promise you, there are other players out there who have no issues ganking, being ganked and who don't call names or insult each other. It's part of the fun. If you can't appreciate it more power to you, it's not a bad reflection on you. But for those of us who enjoy this type of game we should be entitled to it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
People buy Darkfall and still whine about pvp it make me sad seeing this, why they buy a game that have FFA full loot pvp and complain about ganking is beyond me.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
You want to attack people who dont want to attack you, yet when you get attacked and its not convient its being ganked lol.
Double standards.
You want the option to do stuff and not be ganked, its simple, PVE or RP servers.
Are PVE or RP servers full of players who just pve and rp? NO
Do PVE or RP servers people who pvp? not as much but... YES
Do people raid the Cities? YES
Do people raid crossroads, and the T-mill in hillbrad, goldshire? YES (prob more but im horde only, or was).
Fact is, PVE and RP servers do all the same things as PVP servers, yet we dont get ganked as we CHOOSE when to by PVP FLAGGED, thats rights folks, we choose when we want to retaliate, and people do.
So when your leveling and your surrounded by level 85s, you can just laugh in there faces :P
You want to attack people who dont want to attack you, yet when you get attacked and its not convient its being ganked lol.
Double standards.
You want the option to do stuff and not be ganked, its simple, PVE or RP servers.
Are PVE or RP servers full of players who just pve and rp? NO
Do PVE or RP servers people who pvp? not as much but... YES
Do people raid the Cities? YES
Do people raid crossroads, and the T-mill in hillbrad, goldshire? YES (prob more but im horde only, or was).
Fact is, PVE and RP servers do all the same things as PVP servers, yet we dont get ganked as we CHOOSE when to by PVP FLAGGED, thats rights folks, we choose when we want to retaliate, and people do.
So when your leveling and your surrounded by level 85s, you can just laugh in there faces :P
you are making a lot of assumptions.
You want to attack people who dont want to attack you, yet when you get attacked and its not convient its being ganked lol.
I think you are getting caught on semantics in using the word ganked. We can get rid of that if you want. For good players in an ffa pvp game they dont' care if they are attacked and can't defend themselves and they won't cry when it happens.
Otherwise you are talking about WoW. Well, WoW is its own thing. And yes, if players want to flag themselves for pvp when they want then that is fine. Really. I don't believe in forcing people to play in a way that they are not comfortable with. Choice is good. It always is. I've been sayign this since L2 whe some people wanted a more consensual pvp server. This is a good thing.
But so is having a server where people are subject to a brutal world. It's ok to some people for things not to be safe and not to be convenient. This isn't a bad thing. It IS a bad thing when a person who doesn't like that type of play finds themselves in a game where it is the norm.
Do you want to know what else is bad?
PvE games where players who prefer more hardcore pvp rulesets and who try to change the game to suit their needs if no ffa pvp ruleset server is planned.
It just boggles my mind that in this day and age people are still touting the "one size fits all" rule and are making broad, broad sweepign character judgments because they feel uncomfortable wiith something that doesn't fit into their world view.
One size does not fit all and we can just look around at all the games that are successful and that are different from other successful games.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Erm isnt this what the whole topic is about, the title being "getting Ganked".
Ganking like you said doesnt exist, its in the players mind.
If you choose a server where anyone can attack you at any time, why are people making silly threads like this.
You assume that pvp only happens on pvp servers, but ive played various MMo's all mainly on RP and a few PVE servers, and they have PVP. The only diffierence, and I mean only difference from experience, is that you choose when to be flagged or not.
Being ganked is when you are on a pve server (aka wow) and the player uses an exploit to pull you into pvp while you are killing a pve monster. Of course, you didn't choose to be pvp you are playing on a pve server for a reason, and some lvl 85 runs by and hangs out until you do an aoe tht hits them so that they can one shot kill you. Now, a level 85 should not be allowed to attack any player below 85. In Wintergrasp you don't even have a chance unless you are lvl 82, and pvp from 1-82 is impossible, despite Wintergrasp being around since Wrath of the Lich King, now you have to be 82 preferably 85 to even have a chance against another player...
You should never be allowed to be flagged for pvp against your wishes, while you are killing pve npcs.... A player with 10x more hp is a severe disadvantage and you should not have 85s attacking lvl 30 or 65s... Not to mention they block your hits 99.9% and you block theirs .1%...
How on earth is a group of 6 - 8 players against 1 ever fun and a challenge anyway? Players want to pvp, but they can't, because they get ganked by a crowd of players with an obvious number/equipment/level advantage... They want to have a fair fight that requires skill and is fun, not a one shot gank fest... pvp servers are usually a joke on most mmos...
I don't care about getting ganked, I just find ganking in WOW-clones to be totally unsatisfying.
MG'ing EI by the dozens with a Tiger in WWIIONLINE is a rush, killing someone ten levels below me in WOW is totally unsatisfyingm retarded, and makes me feel guilty. When I play WOW as an alliance character I hate alliance more then horde because alliance players steal my ore and undercut what i'm trying to sell at the AH, horde players don't do that to me, I'd prefer to kill alliance players, now isn't that screwed up.
You want to attack people who dont want to attack you, yet when you get attacked and its not convient its being ganked lol.
Double standards.
You want the option to do stuff and not be ganked, its simple, PVE or RP servers.
Are PVE or RP servers full of players who just pve and rp? NO
Do PVE or RP servers people who pvp? not as much but... YES
Do people raid the Cities? YES
Do people raid crossroads, and the T-mill in hillbrad, goldshire? YES (prob more but im horde only, or was).
Fact is, PVE and RP servers do all the same things as PVP servers, yet we dont get ganked as we CHOOSE when to by PVP FLAGGED, thats rights folks, we choose when we want to retaliate, and people do.
So when your leveling and your surrounded by level 85s, you can just laugh in there faces :P
you are making a lot of assumptions.
You want to attack people who dont want to attack you, yet when you get attacked and its not convient its being ganked lol.
I think you are getting caught on semantics in using the word ganked. We can get rid of that if you want. For good players in an ffa pvp game they dont' care if they are attacked and can't defend themselves and they won't cry when it happens.
Otherwise you are talking about WoW. Well, WoW is its own thing. And yes, if players want to flag themselves for pvp when they want then that is fine. Really. I don't believe in forcing people to play in a way that they are not comfortable with. Choice is good. It always is. I've been sayign this since L2 whe some people wanted a more consensual pvp server. This is a good thing.
But so is having a server where people are subject to a brutal world. It's ok to some people for things not to be safe and not to be convenient. This isn't a bad thing. It IS a bad thing when a person who doesn't like that type of play finds themselves in a game where it is the norm.
Do you want to know what else is bad?
PvE games where players who prefer more hardcore pvp rulesets and who try to change the game to suit their needs if no ffa pvp ruleset server is planned.
It just boggles my mind that in this day and age people are still touting the "one size fits all" rule and are making broad, broad sweepign character judgments because they feel uncomfortable wiith something that doesn't fit into their world view.
One size does not fit all and we can just look around at all the games that are successful and that are different from other successful games.
Well, I think it REALLY is about the design intent of the game as you say. I have no problem with players playing a game that is designed as a rabid gankfest, if that's the way the game is designed and advertised and that's what it's players enjoy. I just won't play those games.
The only thing I'll offer is just because a game has mechanics that allow for PvP doesn't mean that the design intent of the game is that it should be a brutal gankfest. Look at Gemstone for instance (if your familiar with Simutronics games). The mechanics of the game actually allowed for FFA PvP...and even looting to a degree...but the Dev's made it ABUNDANTLY clear that the intent of the game was that PKing was rare and consentual...and they enforced that through strict policing of player behavior.
In a perfect world, the Devolopers would always be able to code mechanics that ONLY supported the player use of those mechanics that was intended...and explicitly prevented any behavior that wasn't intended. Applications aren't written in a perfect world, however....and can be very difficult to restrict mechanics to only those uses you really intend.
Players really need to get past the idea that simply because you are ABLE to do something in a game doesn't mean that you are supposed to do it. With things like DUPING... most people realize it's an exploit and if they get caught they are going to get burned..... yet with PKing they seem to think if there is a way to get away with it...even if it's clearly against the intended rule-set...it's somehow fair game. Players really need to spend more time thinking about whether they AUGHT to do something...rather then whether they CAN...... And Dev's need to be a little clearer about setting the expectations for the TYPE of game they are running...and then enforcing that behavior both through mechanics and through in game policing of behavior.
That is, if they want to have a game where it's more then the same dozen people running around knifing each other ad-infinitem until even THEY get bored of it.
I've seen more then a few PvP games fall down that hole.
I call it having respect for the people I'm about to fight, it's the same reason I don't fight people in fencing, SCA, etc until they at least have a damn stick in their hands. Because that's the difference between 'fighting' someone and 'murdering' them.
But again, you just "dont' get it".
You are basically saying "I see it from my point of view through my glasses and this is a universal truth".
For those playes who willingly sign into these games, It doesn't matter.
I will say it again.
It just doesn't matter.
Two points to summarize my counter to your remarks.
1) Accepting murder doesn't make murder any less wrong.
2) 'Not necessarily.'
Every time you make a point on what doing something leads to, it's 'not necessarily'. My points weren't 'what happens', they were 'what usually happens'.
Hence why they were even tiered in commonality of occurrence.
You use an example again about starting war by striking a low level player to try and provoke an enemy group. In the real world that's called a war crime.
You use an example of purging lowbies from an area in order to use it for a single group. That is again a war crime in reality.
And you know the interesting part about reality, it's FFA PvP. Really. There's nothing stopping you from walking outside and stabbing your neighbor to death and squatting in their house.
Go ahead, try it.
You won't? Why not?
Ah yes, there's repercussions.
And that's what I'm condoning here. Have your PvP, but respect it.
Ambushing another group after ganking a lowbie isn't a war, it's an ambush. You're trying to paint flowery words over something to make it into what it is not. Either own up to the reality of it or stop trying to rebrand what doesn't even qualify as guerilla warfare.
You continue to try the 'don't play it since it's not for you' card in spite of admission to favor in FFA PvP and it's ilk.
You claim it's not fair. As I all ready pointe out, it is. It's a matter of balancing action and repercussion if not pre-emptively avoiding the issue through mutual respect.
Which also leads me back to 'not necessarily'. You again try by example of one character to illustrate how the game can be fine with characters ganking with EvilSeed, but in your own words you noted that his targets weren't singularly lowbies and he didn't do it without risk of death.
First, if he was ganking, he'd have minimal to no risk of death.
Second, if he's ok with dying, then he's not just a ganker, nor just ganking.
Your example doesn't even apply to the argument as a result. It's again an attempt to downplay the point of what's at hand.
Even more so, I could use it as an example of what I mean in that he's supposedly 'respectful' as yo said. That is the people I'm arguing for modeling.
Does he kill lowbies? Sure, but that's not all he seems to have been doing, and from what you said he's not out to make anyone's life a hell.
And by example of what you say you have done. 'To be perfectly honest, the only time I've ever done so with my higher lvl characer is when I've killed lower lvl pk'ers.'
You see that right there? You have said a few times now that you don't generally kill lowbies. Now why is it you don't gank lowbies even though it's perfectly acceptable by your game's standards?
The minimal/no reward? The minimal/no interest? The minimal/no purpose? The minimal/no strategic reason? The minimal/no quantitative value?
Regardless the reason you end up saying, you don't gank. By not ganking, you're holding yourself to some form or another of standards, even if it is as weak as 'I don't find it that fun'.
That word right there, 'standards'. Holding one to standards. Having any sense of standard. If you do that, then you are acknowledging some form of right and wrong in the situation, regardless of if you're consciously accepting it.
By not ganking you are acknowledging that it is wrong. The fact that you accept that ganking happens as part of the game you play only means that you accept the reality of the situation.
Which is why I requested you stab your neighbor. Because real life has that same option. You can accept the reality that it happens, that people can and do kill one another. That people even you know might have died or been killed. But why don't you kill as a result? Because of some standards in your mind that write the action off as wrong.
It is no different for games. The fact that you can live out a fantasy as a serial killer without repercussion in a game like L2 does not mean the game was designed to condone it. It's as I said before, there's enough else to that game in the form of disincentives to that action that the only thing yo can get out of it is a shot in the dark for that 'ambush strategy' you've mentioned, or because it's a player getting their jollies from killing something that an't defend itself.
I can't accept that because I have standards. I can accept people fighting one another, I can even accept them killing one another. I've accepted it in reality as well as in games. I have dealt with the issue as part of war. That is also where I think it should stay.
The idea that people can kill you at any time doesn't add a sense of life to games. It adds fear. Do you walk around a mall and expect people to sprint by and slit your throat? Probably not.
You don't expect people to in general be that kind of potential threat, yet any one can be that.
So walking into a town shopping, and getting killed by some random person or people is ok though? What's the disconnect?
The lousiest excuse here is to roll on and say 'It's just a game.'
Sure, it's a game. But even with as much wonton destuction as GTA, Saint's Row, etc have it's neither the theme nor the longterm entertainment value in pedestrian slaying.
Like in Assassin's Creed. My cousin spent the first hour of the game trying out different ways to assasinate people by whacking peasents. After that though the peasent slaying found itself at a minimum as he went through the rest o the game, even when it was acceptable without repercussion, because he had moved on to the 'actual game'.
Same case in Saint's Row. He'd jack a car, run over a dude in a silly suit or two, then go off to a minigame or the campaign. Why? It wasn't that running over pedestrians wasn't fun, it was because there was no incentive.
Like after he got the achievements in Prototype, he stopped running over masses of people in tanks. There just wasn't a purpose to it.
And that's the same thing with L2 and any other game. Sure you can do it, but there's no purpose. You can make up as many weak excuses as you want, but that's all they'll ever be.
Start a clan war? If you wanna start a clan war you either contact the clan or sought out their stomping grounds. That's what I did when I played. 'If a clan is smart' they can beat the other clan in even combat.
So by all means, harp on how it's 'perfectly acceptable to kill lowbies' simply because it's available as an option.
If you really think it is, then own up to it.
Otherwise admit that there's a certain need for respect and repercussion.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I don't usually get invovled in these arugments but I must put my thoughts into this one. PvP is a catch 22: On one hand it gives entertainment to those end game players who have nothing else better to do than PvP(running end game instances over and over again gets VERY boring XD). On The other hand it keeps the low levels and PvE oriented players from enjoying the content that they originally started playing the game to begin with. When game developers made the idea of PvP they introduced to idea of ganking to the game. It has nothing to do with mechanics of the game but more of the mentality of the players. Getting mad at PvP is like getting mad at the gun because a person used it to kill someone. Even if there was no PvP there would still be ways to get people mad.(ie. Kill Stealing, Boss Camping, Trolls, Drama, etc etc) It's part of the game and not going anywhere.
I think the problem lies more in the moderation of the PvP aspect and the lack of consideration in people these days. I currently play PWI(Perfect World Internation) on the server harshlands(which is a PvP server) and i have experienced both sides of the table. Your going to meet those players who gank the lower levels just to get a rise out of people and becasue they also are bored with the end game content. I mean seriously, who wants to run the same old instance over and over, I don't. It's even worse for the ones who have gotten the best gear they could possibly get and literally can't progress any more. You could only make so many alts so it only leaves PvP left to find some fun in the game. Now that doesn't mean that a player should exploit this. There are many people who aren't like that though and they are what give hope to the idea of PvP. I've been killed by higher levels and got props for fighting back. I've dropped gear and asked for it back nicely and they gave it back. I think it doesn't just pertain to the Ganker but the Gankee. Instead of raging and crying about it, why not say "Hey! I'm trying to quest here" or "That was funny but can you leave me be now". Now that might not get every single one to stop but sometimes it really does work. Gankers should also stop to realize that they are ruining the game for people and as funny as it at the time it's not cool to the ones trying to enjoy the game. Even more in a P2P game because they are paying to the enjoy that content. The Ganker wouldn't be too happy if they got the same thing done to them.
I understand that what im explaining is most likely never going to happen 100% but even if one Ganker/Gankee stops to realize this maybe they will enjoy the game experience a bit better. Just wait til you can go back and kick some ass as the Ganker who owned you did to you. The funny part is most Gankee's become the Ganker later on and it will forever be like that.
Well, Just experessing my thoughts. Thanks if you read it and Happy Gaming!
Two points to summarize my counter to your remarks.
1) Accepting murder doesn't make murder any less wrong.
Absoutely correct.
2) 'Not necessarily.'
True "not necessarily"
You use an example again about starting war by striking a low level player to try and provoke an enemy group. In the real world that's called a war crime.
True. And I see no reasn why a game can't encompass this. And that individual or group be labelled as "bad".
You use an example of purging lowbies from an area in order to use it for a single group. That is again a war crime in reality.
Yes, see above.
And you know the interesting part about reality, it's FFA PvP. Really. There's nothing stopping you from walking outside and stabbing your neighbor to death and squatting in their house.
Go ahead, try it.
You won't? Why not?
Ah yes, there's repercussions.
And I think in a good ffa pvp there will be repercussions. Lineage 2 had the "red" system which used dropping items on death and the player/group got a reputation.
And that's what I'm condoning here. Have your PvP, but respect it.
Ambushing another group after ganking a lowbie isn't a war, it's an ambush. You're trying to paint flowery words over something to make it into what it is not. Either own up to the reality of it or stop trying to rebrand what doesn't even qualify as guerilla warfare.
Ok but it's a game. It's not "real life". If you want to say that in the context of the game "it's a warcrime" then fine but so what, that's the game. If the game has repercussions then why can't their be "war crimes"?
You continue to try the 'don't play it since it's not for you' card in spite of admission to favor in FFA PvP and it's ilk.
FFA pvp games have lowbie killing. So what I'm saying is regardless of whether you are in favor of ffa pvp, if there is lowbie killing and you don't like it then don't play. Obviously a game with lowbie killing for "no reason" is not your thing. I respect that. There is no issue. Just like, If I were to go nuts by being ganked, overwhelmed, I would not play .
You claim it's not fair. As I all ready pointe out, it is. It's a matter of balancing action and repercussion if not pre-emptively avoiding the issue through mutual respect.
Regardless of the repercussions, some low lvl player is ganked, killed, camped. So let's change that to "it happens and sometimes the bad guy gets away with it". In a game like Lineage 2 (the only one I can speak to as that is my experience, a little in EVE perhaps) might makes right. That is the game.
Which also leads me back to 'not necessarily'. You again try by example of one character to illustrate how the game can be fine with characters ganking with EvilSeed, but in your own words you noted that his targets weren't singularly lowbies and he didn't do it without risk of death.
First, if he was ganking, he'd have minimal to no risk of death.
He was ganking in lower lvl areas for hours on end and other than calls and cries for help no one could stop him.
Second, if he's ok with dying, then he's not just a ganker, nor just ganking.
Well I think most good players are ok with dying.
Your example doesn't even apply to the argument as a result. It's again an attempt to downplay the point of what's at hand.
No I think it applies. he would camp lower lvl areas and kill lower lvl players as much as he could until he was chased off or killed. Those players were lowbies who were killed without warning. If that is not ganking then what is?
Even more so, I could use it as an example of what I mean in that he's supposedly 'respectful' as yo said. That is the people I'm arguing for modeling.
well so am I. I'm always for people being respectful to others in game.
Does he kill lowbies? Sure, but that's not all he seems to have been doing, and from what you said he's not out to make anyone's life a hell.
Well, in truth he would pk as much as he could get away with regardless of whether people asked him to stop or not. But he wouldn't use foul language or insult his victims. He would also fight others who came as well. So if you want to call him a part time ganker so be it. Seems silly though.
And by example of what you say you have done. 'To be perfectly honest, the only time I've ever done so with my higher lvl characer is when I've killed lower lvl pk'ers.'
You see that right there? You have said a few times now that you don't generally kill lowbies. Now why is it you don't gank lowbies even though it's perfectly acceptable by your game's standards?
you see this is my issue with not only this argumet but some other arguments on this site. there is this "one dimensionality or linear thinking that just because I think somethign is bad for a game means that it's universally bad.
I accept the rules of the game, that lower level players can be killed with impunity. I accept it. I didn't say I did it with the exception of pk'ers and war tags.
I accept that the world is brutal and that players will take over noob areas. It's ok because it labels them as being "bad/evil, etc" and thus they show their quality. I have no problem with this. But if I'm in the world then I'll be a force for "good" as much as I can be.
The minimal/no reward? The minimal/no interest? The minimal/no purpose? The minimal/no strategic reason? The minimal/no quantitative value?
It's just not who I am. If they are a pk'er or wartag they get killed no matter the level. Other than that, it's just not my thing. Doesn't resonate with me. If others want to do it then that's fine for them.
Regardless the reason you end up saying, you don't gank. By not ganking, you're holding yourself to some form or another of standards, even if it is as weak as 'I don't find it that fun'.
That word right there, 'standards'. Holding one to standards. Having any sense of standard. If you do that, then you are acknowledging some form of right and wrong in the situation, regardless of if you're consciously accepting it.
By not ganking you are acknowledging that it is wrong. The fact that you accept that ganking happens as part of the game you play only means that you accept the reality of the situation.
There is no issue here and you are correct. But I accept it as part of the game and a way for players to inhabit the world in a way that generates a larger society or "under society". But I say "so what if it's wrong, there are players who want to be this type of person and I accept that as part of a brutal world game.
Which is why I requested you stab your neighbor. Because real life has that same option. You can accept the reality that it happens, that people can and do kill one another. That people even you know might have died or been killed. But why don't you kill as a result? Because of some standards in your mind that write the action off as wrong.
naw sorry, I'm not biting. I'm not going to equate virtual ganking to me stabbing my neighbor. They are different even though on the surface one might think they are the same. In a game the player wronged will respawn, maybew with loss of items or xp and live to play another day. Most likely they are aware this is part of the game and it won't be a big deal. If I stab my neighbor... well, we all know what that is about now don't we?
It is no different for games. The fact that you can live out a fantasy as a serial killer without repercussion in a game like L2 does not mean the game was designed to condone it.
Actually the game was designed to condone it. The developers said they were making a brutal might makes right no holds barred savage game.
It's as I said before, there's enough else to that game in the form of disincentives to that action that the only thing yo can get out of it is a shot in the dark for that 'ambush strategy' you've mentioned, or because it's a player getting their jollies from killing something that an't defend itself.
I can't accept that because I have standards. I can accept people fighting one another, I can even accept them killing one another. I've accepted it in reality as well as in games. I have dealt with the issue as part of war. That is also where I think it should stay.
The idea that people can kill you at any time doesn't add a sense of life to games. It adds fear. Do you walk around a mall and expect people to sprint by and slit your throat? Probably not.
You don't expect people to in general be that kind of potential threat, yet any one can be that.
So walking into a town shopping, and getting killed by some random person or people is ok though? What's the disconnect?
The lousiest excuse here is to roll on and say 'It's just a game.'
I disagree, it is "just a game and it's not a lousy excuse". You just can't accept that "it's just a game".
er, etc.
Look I'm sorry but you are really trying to conflate a game with real life. And just because you say it's a lousy excuse doesn't mean that has any weight in my book. People are adults and they need to take charge of their own entertainment. If a game allows ganking then they have the choice to participate or not. I know I did and in the end I chose to participate even though I personally only kill lowbies in the above examples.
You might say they are not different and I suppose there are some really nutty people who can't disassociate themselves from that fact but for those of us who have a bit more of a foot in reality we can get into the world and be who we can be and then not stab our neighbor.
I maintain that having a brutal world for a game world is not for everyone but for those people who know what it is about and who are willing to be a part of it, they will find a different sort of game play. It's not for everyone, I can say that. But I won't accept your argument that killing players in a game is equal to stabbing someone in real life or that the people who do it are some sort of psychopath. If you want to believe that then great.
There are psychopaths in pve games as well, believe me, I know. They just don't go around player killing.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Well, I think it REALLY is about the design intent of the game as you say. I have no problem with players playing a game that is designed as a rabid gankfest, if that's the way the game is designed and advertised and that's what it's players enjoy. I just won't play those games.
The only thing I'll offer is just because a game has mechanics that allow for PvP doesn't mean that the design intent of the game is that it should be a brutal gankfest.
Thank you and I completely agree.
But in Lineage 2 and I suppose in EVE though I can't speak to a lot of experience there, one can do whatever one wants. The designers of L2 made it so that it would be a brutal world, scamming was allowed and your fealty went to your clan leader. Many of the early clan decisions revolved around this as clan leaders had the ultimate power in a clan and got the ultimate rewards. Part of this might be cultural and how they would play these games.
But these things were/are allowed.
But that does't mean that all ffa pvp game are made this way. I just cant' speak for any other game other than L2 or a bit of EVE.
Well, maybe a small amount of darkfall but no one as yet has ever ganked me. I wasn't in game long enough to find out as I'm sure it was bound to happen.
edit: and you are correct, just because one can do something doesn't mean they should.
Duping makes sense. That is NOT what the developers wanted. That is finding a bug and exploiting it.
as a point of note, in Lineage 2, some western players discovered that they could lure a siege mob down from the castle siege to destroy the people in town.
Now, technically, in a brutal world that would be accepted. But this was immediately changed because the overriding desire of the developers was for the towns to always be safe havens.
When asked what the korean players did in this situation the gm on the forums answered "they are too busy playing the game to figure out ways on how to get around things to grief people".
So even in a game like L2, there were boundaries.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Would have been nice to have an accurate statement on EvilSeed, as you you added there paints him in a different light than what you said prior, and that does indeed change the context in which he appears.
Your commentary on 'might makes right' and 'brutality' as a theme of the game. I again cite GTA, Saint's Row, and Assassin's Creed.
'Actually the game was designed to condone it. The developers said they were making a brutal might makes right no holds barred savage game.'
That right there is again why I mentioned 'not quite'.
What you just said is distinctly different from what they said. Where does 'brutal might makes right no holds barred savage game' mean 'kill people who can't fight back'.
I interpreted that to mean competition. Competition means challenge. In ganking there is no challenge. It's not savage, it's not brutal, it does nothing to display might.
Again I state that if the game was designed to condone it they wouldn't flag players for doing it and they wouldn't have a distinct lack of reward or subsequent reason.
The fact that they build disincentives into the game like tiered xp, like tiered rewards, like flags, like item drops, etc is a clear display of that.
You say I'm combining reality and games, which you also equate to a 'surface' mentality.
Which is generally false.
There is a big time psychological disconnect for most people between the things done on screen and the things done in real life. You elude to the cases where people can't make the distinctions due to mental illness, but that is not what I was referring to nor addressing in any way. By equating it as such you dismiss the premise and point entirely.
I see the disconnect as a problem. It's the sense that what you are doing isn't to real people, even when you're in PvP. That's a problem. It's a cognitive dissonance between actions and repercussions. The more people disassociate their game and real life actions, the less they can see and acknowledge the influences they have both on one another, the game community, and your own life as a whole.
You also disregard my segment regarding the 'It's just a game.' excuse, which leaves me in predicament of either repeating myself or ignoring the complacent refutation entirely.
EDIT:
'Now, technically, in a brutal world that would be accepted. But this was immediately changed because the overriding desire of the developers was for the towns to always be safe havens.
When asked what the korean players did in this situation the gm on the forums answered "they are too busy playing the game to figure out ways on how to get around things to grief people".'
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Would have been nice to have an accurate statement on EvilSeed, as you you added there paints him in a different light than what you said prior, and that does indeed change the context in which he appears.
Your commentary on 'might makes right' and 'brutality' as a theme of the game. I again cite GTA, Saint's Row, and Assassin's Creed.
'Actually the game was designed to condone it. The developers said they were making a brutal might makes right no holds barred savage game.'
That right there is again why I mentioned 'not quite'.
What you just said is distinctly different from what they said. Where does 'brutal might makes right no holds barred savage game' mean 'kill people who can't fight back'.
I interpreted that to mean competition. Competition means challenge. In ganking there is no challenge. It's not savage, it's not brutal, it does nothing to display might.
Again I state that if the game was designed to condone it they wouldn't flag players for doing it and they wouldn't have a distinct lack of reward or subsequent reason.
The fact that they build disincentives into the game like tiered xp, like tiered rewards, like flags, like item drops, etc is a clear display of that.
You say I'm combining reality and games, which you also equate to a 'surface' mentality.
Which is generally false.
There is a big time psychological disconnect for most people between the things done on screen and the things done in real life. You elude to the cases where people can't make the distinctions due to mental illness, but that is not what I was referring to nor addressing in any way. By equating it as such you dismiss the premise and point entirely.
I see the disconnect as a problem. It's the sense that what you are doing isn't to real people, even when you're in PvP. That's a problem. It's a cognitive dissonance between actions and repercussions. The more people disassociate their game and real life actions, the less they can see and acknowledge the influences they have both on one another, the game community, and your own life as a whole.
You also disregard my segment regarding the 'It's just a game.' excuse, which leaves me in predicament of either repeating myself or ignoring the complacent refutation entirely.
EDIT:
'Now, technically, in a brutal world that would be accepted. But this was immediately changed because the overriding desire of the developers was for the towns to always be safe havens.
When asked what the korean players did in this situation the gm on the forums answered "they are too busy playing the game to figure out ways on how to get around things to grief people".'
There's only so much typing time to get a point across. If this was an actual conversation it would be a lot easier to cover all needs to be covered without typing/waiting/typing/waiting.
if I missed a detail about evilseed then it was just because I wanted to touch upon him. He indeed would camp outside light elf village and just pick noobs off. But he never insulted anyone, never did anyting other than pick off players he could pick off. He knew that he might die if higher lvl help came but he was of decent level so he wasn't so scared.
In the case of "brutal world", again, it was the might makes right mentality. Remember, players could scam other players and it was allowed.
The disensentives were there to add consequences. This has always been a good thing.
If they didn't want higher lvl players to attack lower lvl players the easy thing would be to just make it so they couldn't be attacked.
Players begged for a pve server, for some way to stave off higher lvl attacks but it was part of the game. Just like the disensentives. It wasn't that the developers were frownign upon it. It would have been as easy to just make it so lower lvl players couldn't be attacked.
Now in the interest of full disclosure, many years later they added a buff that disallowed higher lvl players from atacking lower lvl playesr. However, this was because the population was waning, no longer was the game playing with a robust populaton and instead of allowing players to forge relationships with higher lvl clans/players the new player would never see anyone. And they would be pk'ed.
the game and developers condoned the act they just had players make a choice.
But again, I'm just not going to see eye to eye on your idea of disassociating game play and real life. If we are going to go that far might we then start saying that violent video games create violent players? Violent people?
And I don't buy that. I think that violent video games or any violent content feeds people who are already predisposed to violent actions.
And remember, there are people on this site (and I almost linked one post earlier today) who actually state that they "like to gank/like to be ganked".
And this is the crux of my argument and why we are having this discussion. You don't accept (and correct me if I'm wrong there) that there are people who like to gank and be ganked. I sense that your argument resides solely on the idea that players don't like to be ganked.
But that's not universally true.
And while I don't personally "like" to be ganked (read: it doesn't bring a greater bit of sunshine into my day) I also don't care if I'm ganked. It's a non-issue. And I would (and have) go as far as to say I've had some of the best game play sessions trying to avoid gankers/pk'ers. There is a fun in actually escaping and outsmarting your tormentors.
as far as the example of using the siege mob to grief players, remember, that wasn't built into the game for that purpose. Pk'ing was and there was as system of consequence. However, luring the siege mob was nothing the developers had even imagined players would do, therefore they didn't build anything into the game to stop it. Same with luring raid bosses into cities.
Some players would do this and stores (players set up individual stores) would die and they would drop items.
And... there was no consequence. Which is why the developers hastened to build in safe guards so players couldn't do that anymore.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Actually my premise rested on the design of leveling vs skill based games originally.
I brought up that alongside an example in Mount&Blade, noting how It's generally easier to find both competent/respectabe opponents and how the system inherently deters gankers by not generating an arbitrary insurmountable gap between the avatars abilities.
I accept perfectly fine that there's people who like to gank and be ganked. I just don't like them and find it nigh impossible to respect them. I know when playing a game and I'm fubar, and I accept the inevitable in such situations. I can enjoy those moments in the games I play because they are only able to happen because I'm actually against better skilled or better organized players.
That's also where my revised analogy 'If players don't want to get tackled by a freight train while playing football, they shouldn't be playing a hackneyed version of football where older athletes can drive vehicles on the field.' came in.
I was appealing to the case of the arbitrary difference in ability and inevitably one sided results.
I even said that. 'It's not a fight if there's a clear victor before the fight even starts, then it's just boring.'
I brought up the matter that I had the same experiences in AC and DAoC ffa servers early on too. They were simply more respectable games where the community policed themselves well. They even had public KOS listings for serious offenders.
And you keep making that comment that it must be condoned by the game since it's an option in the game regardless of disincentives.
In Planetside you can kill your team mates. You got negative rep and if you did it enough times you could get flagged. Nothing different about that situation. You wouldn't be banned from the game or anything for doing it, you wouldn't even get a peep out of the devs. Yet, people still knew it wasn't the right thing to do.
Did people still do it? Sometimes yes.
Did other people accept it since it was a part of the game? Hell no.
They took the regulation into their own hands. Ally keeps teamkilling, eject that twit into the water from your dropship next chance you get. Drop that twit from your unit and platoon an keep on trucking, leaving him behind.
And like I said with DAoC and AC. People did self policing. Both games let you kill anyone and everyone on their PvP servers, yet you could walk around most all cities without much in the way of concern.
This was especially amazing considering you looted corpses on AC, so there was potential reward from killing anyone, even lowbies. The reason it wan't rampant was because of a stable minded player base that dealt with the gankers in a swift fashion and did a wonderful job to deter them.
Also, on the real life versus games topic, you again are eluding to something I am mot addressing. Related maybe, but not the same topic.
It's well established that people won't suddenly become homicidal maniacs if they play a violent game. You don't need to take a trip to some exaggerated fantasy to belittle the issue.
The issue itself is that the two are indeed tied still. If you can't accept the causal relation between them then that's fine, but there's a great risk carried with denial.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
My 2 coppers. I play Warhammer on a core ruleset server meaning you are flagged only when you choose to be. The flag timer though is 10 minutes, so if you pass into "enemy territory" while flagged, you are fair game for 10 minutes or so until your flag drops.
So I passed through one of the pvp areas headed to my favorite pig farming cave in enemy territory and along the way a group of 6 must have seen me. I got set up, gathered up my pigs and commenced to slaughtering when this group, 2 40's and 4 assorted 30's, rushed in to try and kill me as my flag had not dropped yet. Now I am fairly high renown ranked and well geared, but even I was shocked that I managed to wipe this group. It was totally exhilirating. This proceeded to go on for over an hour, they would heal up, regroup, wait until I was tanking a half dozen pigs or more then spring the trap. I almost felt bad for them because they just didn't have the skills/renown/gear to dig me out. They got an A for effort, but never managed to overwhelm me. It was the gankee's dream and I got to live it! My only regret is I was so busy trying to stay alive I never managed to get any screenshots, lol.
To me, this was the payback for all the ganks I've endured in my years of mmorpging and what makes me such a huge fan of the genre in spite of the occasional bad seed that griefs or corpse camps.
My first mmorpg was Lineage 2 and I played WoW for several years. My second best 'gank event' was beating a gnome rogue to death on my tauren shaman with a fishing pole in STV.
Originally posted by Sovrath I think it's important to note that getting ganked or evern griefed is not an issue for players who clearly understand the rules of the game world and are there precisely because those rules exist.
It's usually people who are on the fence about such rules or who probably shouldn't be playing an open pvp game or being in an open pvp area. In addition: The second thing that being a gankee does for you is give you an adrenaline rush. Seeing that enemy player rolling up to me on screen gets my blood pumping!
It's important to note that the above quote is not a positive for all people. For some reason there is a group of pvp'ers who find it hard to believe that players don't want the above mentioned "feeling". Some don't. Not everyone has the same reaction to an adrenaline rush. And though some might find the feeling positive, some will find it a negative. I will say that for the right people, being in an ffa area or in an ffa game can be a plus because they will push themselves to be stronger. That was my experience in Lineage 2. However, I will also have to say that I only enjoyed the large scale pvp events between clans/alliances or the sieges. ffa pvp is not for everyone and people on both sides need to realize this.
This.
I would rather go into real life surgery with all that goes with that than to spend 15 minutes in a open FFA PvP MMO. That is why I do not play MMOs that have any form of open PvP in them, no matter how good they are (EvE Online I am referring to here specifically). I love Sandbox style design in MMOs because the virtual world feels much more real and alive, but the PvP features (gank, grief, different yes but all the same to me really) that almost all Sandbox MMOs have kills any possible enjoyment I might get from those games.
It's amazing that so many people can not understand my point of view on this...
.... oh wait.... that's what the PvP Players say when they explain their reasons for why they love pvp so much...
We as Players of MMOs have been arguing about this one topic far to long for people not to finally understand. There are PvPers and there are PvEers. That's all, and Devs should stop attempting to make a MMO that caters to both camps... it really cannot be done for each of the groups will be pissed off that the Devs listened to the other side.
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!" ............... "I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. " __Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__ ...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
To me, this was the payback for all the ganks I've endured in my years of mmorpging and what makes me such a huge fan of the genre in spite of the occasional bad seed that griefs or corpse camps.
That's like parents abusing their kids to take revenge for getting abused by their parents when they were children. Sounds like a criminal-justice problem, not a game problem, to me.
Comments
personally, i hate pvp and getting ganked. I tryed lineage 2 and loved the game but hated the open pvp, its not that i lost all my battels i didnt, i won 75% of them even fighting higher lvl chars I just dont like pvp. So i have swoar off all pvp games. I think that children shouldnt be aloud to play them either because it teaches them to be mean and disrespectful. I think the corps which develop games should make both non pvp and pvp servers when they launch a game and give the players a choise. if the dont they are loosing out on a big part of the market and i hate forced pvp. i think wow has taken this way to far on there pve servers its one of the reasons i quit playing wow, to much pvp on the pve servers. even though its not really forced your fellow guild mates try and talk you into it so they can get better armor if your faction has the battel grounds. so i am looking foward to eq next its not supposed to have pvp, cant wate.
P.S. wish they had spell check on this forem lol
the only game i ever really did unconsensual pvp was EVE (low sec pirate). I think it's because there are specific areas where there is open pvp, so people in these areas know and willingly put themselves in danger, which i guess makes me feel better about killing people. Other games i usually hunt gankers and griefers and stick up for the lower levels, either way though i always perfer pvp servers. Adds to the atmosphere, depth, and random surprise factor for me.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
I don't understand when people get upset about forced PVP when they knew it was in the game. Also if your getting ganked...call your friends or your faction...get a grou to kill the ganker and destroy his kisk. That was the fun of pvp..retaliation! I've been gaked before while questing in Aion...all I had to do was alert LFG and 20 people come running. If you had no one to help and no legionmates..maybe that was the problem.
"If you don’t know what it is to be ganked or how you could gank someone, you probably have no business being on this website."
That is as far as I got. You can't expect everyone know everything.
Godspeed my fellow gamer
You sir are a certifiable genius. You don't enjoy open pvp games so you DO NOT play them. My hat is off to you. If only other people could follow your shining example of simple reasoning.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
But again, you just "dont' get it".
You are basically saying "I see it from my point of view through my glasses and this is a universal truth".
For those playes who willingly sign into these games, It doesn't matter.
I will say it again.
It just doesn't matter.
If I'm in a pvp game with full ffa pvp and someone 4000 levels above me ganks me, it doesn't matter. There is no harm therefore there is no foul. Why? Because I expect it and have bought into the fact that it is a part of the game. I have made a conscious decision to sign into this type of game and agree to its rulesets.
As far as the player interaction, you are, again, seeing it through one side. I can't disagree that there is whining, complaining, insulting, etc. But those are just horrible players and probably horrible people. Or people who allow themselves to wallow in horrible behavior.
But as I have said, killing low lvl players will eventually bring high level players. If a clan is smart they will use it as an ambush.
So let's say I was inclined to kill low lvl players. To be perfectly honest, the only time I've ever done so with my higher lvl characer is when I've killed lower lvl pk'ers.
But lets' say I want to strike a blow against a clan/alliance. Let's say "shot heard 'round the world". I could easily find that clan's low lvl players, do some player killing, draw their higher levels and have an ambush waiting. And thus the war starts.
And you know what?
In a game like Lineage 2 where one can be a saint or sinner, it still is a good thing. If a clan or set of players wants to kill low lvl players, wants to take control of Talking Island then they essentially show their quality. They are then automatically declaring their "side" and it even makes it easier for players who don't condone this type of thing to declare war.
PvP in an open world requires conflict. It's ok for players to be the bad guys. And since there are a lot of players of questinable moral fiber who want to adopt the sinner mentality it makes it all the easier.
Would it be better if all players treated everyone with respect? sure. But that's not the game.
If a clan wants to take over a hunting area by wiping out any lower level players not of their clan/alliance then that is "ok". Part of a game like Lineage 2 is controlling hunting areas. This causes conflict and this causes war.
Now again, I agree that there are a lot of players who can dish it out but can't take it. I've had players pk me only for me to do the same back to them and they whined and cried like there was no tomorrow. But I'm not going to look down on a system because there are some poor players.
What it comes down to is if you don't like that system, don't play. It's not fair to other people who are willing to be in a game where one can make their own destiny, become a saint or sinner by their own actions, to have players decry the system that the game designers put in place.
An example of one player who became somewhat infamous was a player named EvilSeed on Hindemith server. He woulnd't just try to pk lower lvl players but he would target lower lvl players more often than not.
And you know what? He never badmouthed anyone he killed, he was always respectful, no name calling just did what he did. if he was killed then that was no big deal either, it was part of the fun.
So I say "if you don't like being tackled then don't play tackle football" and you say "more like don't play a game where you are being tackled like by a mack truck" (paraphrase) and I say to that "it still doesnt' matter".
If I sign into these games and I'm killed by an entire alliance then it's ok by me. I've had some extremely fun times trying to get by pk'ers without being seen and felt it made the world more alive, more robust with different characters and factions.
So if other players don't care about being pk'ed by higher lvl players then why not just let us play these games without trying to change them.
You have the choice not to sign in. Let those of us who dont' care about this system have it.
I promise you, there are other players out there who have no issues ganking, being ganked and who don't call names or insult each other. It's part of the fun. If you can't appreciate it more power to you, it's not a bad reflection on you. But for those of us who enjoy this type of game we should be entitled to it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
People buy Darkfall and still whine about pvp it make me sad seeing this, why they buy a game that have FFA full loot pvp and complain about ganking is beyond me.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
This thread is pointless and hypocritical.
You want to attack people who dont want to attack you, yet when you get attacked and its not convient its being ganked lol.
Double standards.
You want the option to do stuff and not be ganked, its simple, PVE or RP servers.
Are PVE or RP servers full of players who just pve and rp? NO
Do PVE or RP servers people who pvp? not as much but... YES
Do people raid the Cities? YES
Do people raid crossroads, and the T-mill in hillbrad, goldshire? YES (prob more but im horde only, or was).
Fact is, PVE and RP servers do all the same things as PVP servers, yet we dont get ganked as we CHOOSE when to by PVP FLAGGED, thats rights folks, we choose when we want to retaliate, and people do.
So when your leveling and your surrounded by level 85s, you can just laugh in there faces :P
you are making a lot of assumptions.
You want to attack people who dont want to attack you, yet when you get attacked and its not convient its being ganked lol.
I think you are getting caught on semantics in using the word ganked. We can get rid of that if you want. For good players in an ffa pvp game they dont' care if they are attacked and can't defend themselves and they won't cry when it happens.
Otherwise you are talking about WoW. Well, WoW is its own thing. And yes, if players want to flag themselves for pvp when they want then that is fine. Really. I don't believe in forcing people to play in a way that they are not comfortable with. Choice is good. It always is. I've been sayign this since L2 whe some people wanted a more consensual pvp server. This is a good thing.
But so is having a server where people are subject to a brutal world. It's ok to some people for things not to be safe and not to be convenient. This isn't a bad thing. It IS a bad thing when a person who doesn't like that type of play finds themselves in a game where it is the norm.
Do you want to know what else is bad?
PvE games where players who prefer more hardcore pvp rulesets and who try to change the game to suit their needs if no ffa pvp ruleset server is planned.
It just boggles my mind that in this day and age people are still touting the "one size fits all" rule and are making broad, broad sweepign character judgments because they feel uncomfortable wiith something that doesn't fit into their world view.
One size does not fit all and we can just look around at all the games that are successful and that are different from other successful games.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Erm isnt this what the whole topic is about, the title being "getting Ganked".
Ganking like you said doesnt exist, its in the players mind.
If you choose a server where anyone can attack you at any time, why are people making silly threads like this.
You assume that pvp only happens on pvp servers, but ive played various MMo's all mainly on RP and a few PVE servers, and they have PVP. The only diffierence, and I mean only difference from experience, is that you choose when to be flagged or not.
Being ganked is when you are on a pve server (aka wow) and the player uses an exploit to pull you into pvp while you are killing a pve monster. Of course, you didn't choose to be pvp you are playing on a pve server for a reason, and some lvl 85 runs by and hangs out until you do an aoe tht hits them so that they can one shot kill you. Now, a level 85 should not be allowed to attack any player below 85. In Wintergrasp you don't even have a chance unless you are lvl 82, and pvp from 1-82 is impossible, despite Wintergrasp being around since Wrath of the Lich King, now you have to be 82 preferably 85 to even have a chance against another player...
You should never be allowed to be flagged for pvp against your wishes, while you are killing pve npcs.... A player with 10x more hp is a severe disadvantage and you should not have 85s attacking lvl 30 or 65s... Not to mention they block your hits 99.9% and you block theirs .1%...
Well battlegrounds are usually full of low level twinks in heirloom equipment from max level mains making pvp nearly impossible ...
How on earth is a group of 6 - 8 players against 1 ever fun and a challenge anyway? Players want to pvp, but they can't, because they get ganked by a crowd of players with an obvious number/equipment/level advantage... They want to have a fair fight that requires skill and is fun, not a one shot gank fest... pvp servers are usually a joke on most mmos...
I don't care about getting ganked, I just find ganking in WOW-clones to be totally unsatisfying.
MG'ing EI by the dozens with a Tiger in WWIIONLINE is a rush, killing someone ten levels below me in WOW is totally unsatisfyingm retarded, and makes me feel guilty. When I play WOW as an alliance character I hate alliance more then horde because alliance players steal my ore and undercut what i'm trying to sell at the AH, horde players don't do that to me, I'd prefer to kill alliance players, now isn't that screwed up.
You want real PVP, try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfoCm6i-7XI
You can't grind your way to victory in this game, or go to e-bay and buy victory with real money, you actually have to use skill.
Well, I think it REALLY is about the design intent of the game as you say. I have no problem with players playing a game that is designed as a rabid gankfest, if that's the way the game is designed and advertised and that's what it's players enjoy. I just won't play those games.
The only thing I'll offer is just because a game has mechanics that allow for PvP doesn't mean that the design intent of the game is that it should be a brutal gankfest. Look at Gemstone for instance (if your familiar with Simutronics games). The mechanics of the game actually allowed for FFA PvP...and even looting to a degree...but the Dev's made it ABUNDANTLY clear that the intent of the game was that PKing was rare and consentual...and they enforced that through strict policing of player behavior.
In a perfect world, the Devolopers would always be able to code mechanics that ONLY supported the player use of those mechanics that was intended...and explicitly prevented any behavior that wasn't intended. Applications aren't written in a perfect world, however....and can be very difficult to restrict mechanics to only those uses you really intend.
Players really need to get past the idea that simply because you are ABLE to do something in a game doesn't mean that you are supposed to do it. With things like DUPING... most people realize it's an exploit and if they get caught they are going to get burned..... yet with PKing they seem to think if there is a way to get away with it...even if it's clearly against the intended rule-set...it's somehow fair game. Players really need to spend more time thinking about whether they AUGHT to do something...rather then whether they CAN...... And Dev's need to be a little clearer about setting the expectations for the TYPE of game they are running...and then enforcing that behavior both through mechanics and through in game policing of behavior.
That is, if they want to have a game where it's more then the same dozen people running around knifing each other ad-infinitem until even THEY get bored of it.
I've seen more then a few PvP games fall down that hole.
Two points to summarize my counter to your remarks.
1) Accepting murder doesn't make murder any less wrong.
2) 'Not necessarily.'
Every time you make a point on what doing something leads to, it's 'not necessarily'. My points weren't 'what happens', they were 'what usually happens'.
Hence why they were even tiered in commonality of occurrence.
You use an example again about starting war by striking a low level player to try and provoke an enemy group. In the real world that's called a war crime.
You use an example of purging lowbies from an area in order to use it for a single group. That is again a war crime in reality.
And you know the interesting part about reality, it's FFA PvP. Really. There's nothing stopping you from walking outside and stabbing your neighbor to death and squatting in their house.
Go ahead, try it.
You won't? Why not?
Ah yes, there's repercussions.
And that's what I'm condoning here. Have your PvP, but respect it.
Ambushing another group after ganking a lowbie isn't a war, it's an ambush. You're trying to paint flowery words over something to make it into what it is not. Either own up to the reality of it or stop trying to rebrand what doesn't even qualify as guerilla warfare.
You continue to try the 'don't play it since it's not for you' card in spite of admission to favor in FFA PvP and it's ilk.
You claim it's not fair. As I all ready pointe out, it is. It's a matter of balancing action and repercussion if not pre-emptively avoiding the issue through mutual respect.
Which also leads me back to 'not necessarily'. You again try by example of one character to illustrate how the game can be fine with characters ganking with EvilSeed, but in your own words you noted that his targets weren't singularly lowbies and he didn't do it without risk of death.
First, if he was ganking, he'd have minimal to no risk of death.
Second, if he's ok with dying, then he's not just a ganker, nor just ganking.
Your example doesn't even apply to the argument as a result. It's again an attempt to downplay the point of what's at hand.
Even more so, I could use it as an example of what I mean in that he's supposedly 'respectful' as yo said. That is the people I'm arguing for modeling.
Does he kill lowbies? Sure, but that's not all he seems to have been doing, and from what you said he's not out to make anyone's life a hell.
And by example of what you say you have done. 'To be perfectly honest, the only time I've ever done so with my higher lvl characer is when I've killed lower lvl pk'ers.'
You see that right there? You have said a few times now that you don't generally kill lowbies. Now why is it you don't gank lowbies even though it's perfectly acceptable by your game's standards?
The minimal/no reward? The minimal/no interest? The minimal/no purpose? The minimal/no strategic reason? The minimal/no quantitative value?
Regardless the reason you end up saying, you don't gank. By not ganking, you're holding yourself to some form or another of standards, even if it is as weak as 'I don't find it that fun'.
That word right there, 'standards'. Holding one to standards. Having any sense of standard. If you do that, then you are acknowledging some form of right and wrong in the situation, regardless of if you're consciously accepting it.
By not ganking you are acknowledging that it is wrong. The fact that you accept that ganking happens as part of the game you play only means that you accept the reality of the situation.
Which is why I requested you stab your neighbor. Because real life has that same option. You can accept the reality that it happens, that people can and do kill one another. That people even you know might have died or been killed. But why don't you kill as a result? Because of some standards in your mind that write the action off as wrong.
It is no different for games. The fact that you can live out a fantasy as a serial killer without repercussion in a game like L2 does not mean the game was designed to condone it. It's as I said before, there's enough else to that game in the form of disincentives to that action that the only thing yo can get out of it is a shot in the dark for that 'ambush strategy' you've mentioned, or because it's a player getting their jollies from killing something that an't defend itself.
I can't accept that because I have standards. I can accept people fighting one another, I can even accept them killing one another. I've accepted it in reality as well as in games. I have dealt with the issue as part of war. That is also where I think it should stay.
The idea that people can kill you at any time doesn't add a sense of life to games. It adds fear. Do you walk around a mall and expect people to sprint by and slit your throat? Probably not.
You don't expect people to in general be that kind of potential threat, yet any one can be that.
So walking into a town shopping, and getting killed by some random person or people is ok though? What's the disconnect?
The lousiest excuse here is to roll on and say 'It's just a game.'
Sure, it's a game. But even with as much wonton destuction as GTA, Saint's Row, etc have it's neither the theme nor the longterm entertainment value in pedestrian slaying.
Like in Assassin's Creed. My cousin spent the first hour of the game trying out different ways to assasinate people by whacking peasents. After that though the peasent slaying found itself at a minimum as he went through the rest o the game, even when it was acceptable without repercussion, because he had moved on to the 'actual game'.
Same case in Saint's Row. He'd jack a car, run over a dude in a silly suit or two, then go off to a minigame or the campaign. Why? It wasn't that running over pedestrians wasn't fun, it was because there was no incentive.
Like after he got the achievements in Prototype, he stopped running over masses of people in tanks. There just wasn't a purpose to it.
And that's the same thing with L2 and any other game. Sure you can do it, but there's no purpose. You can make up as many weak excuses as you want, but that's all they'll ever be.
Start a clan war? If you wanna start a clan war you either contact the clan or sought out their stomping grounds. That's what I did when I played. 'If a clan is smart' they can beat the other clan in even combat.
So by all means, harp on how it's 'perfectly acceptable to kill lowbies' simply because it's available as an option.
If you really think it is, then own up to it.
Otherwise admit that there's a certain need for respect and repercussion.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I don't usually get invovled in these arugments but I must put my thoughts into this one. PvP is a catch 22: On one hand it gives entertainment to those end game players who have nothing else better to do than PvP(running end game instances over and over again gets VERY boring XD). On The other hand it keeps the low levels and PvE oriented players from enjoying the content that they originally started playing the game to begin with. When game developers made the idea of PvP they introduced to idea of ganking to the game. It has nothing to do with mechanics of the game but more of the mentality of the players. Getting mad at PvP is like getting mad at the gun because a person used it to kill someone. Even if there was no PvP there would still be ways to get people mad.(ie. Kill Stealing, Boss Camping, Trolls, Drama, etc etc) It's part of the game and not going anywhere.
I think the problem lies more in the moderation of the PvP aspect and the lack of consideration in people these days. I currently play PWI(Perfect World Internation) on the server harshlands(which is a PvP server) and i have experienced both sides of the table. Your going to meet those players who gank the lower levels just to get a rise out of people and becasue they also are bored with the end game content. I mean seriously, who wants to run the same old instance over and over, I don't. It's even worse for the ones who have gotten the best gear they could possibly get and literally can't progress any more. You could only make so many alts so it only leaves PvP left to find some fun in the game. Now that doesn't mean that a player should exploit this. There are many people who aren't like that though and they are what give hope to the idea of PvP. I've been killed by higher levels and got props for fighting back. I've dropped gear and asked for it back nicely and they gave it back. I think it doesn't just pertain to the Ganker but the Gankee. Instead of raging and crying about it, why not say "Hey! I'm trying to quest here" or "That was funny but can you leave me be now". Now that might not get every single one to stop but sometimes it really does work. Gankers should also stop to realize that they are ruining the game for people and as funny as it at the time it's not cool to the ones trying to enjoy the game. Even more in a P2P game because they are paying to the enjoy that content. The Ganker wouldn't be too happy if they got the same thing done to them.
I understand that what im explaining is most likely never going to happen 100% but even if one Ganker/Gankee stops to realize this maybe they will enjoy the game experience a bit better. Just wait til you can go back and kick some ass as the Ganker who owned you did to you. The funny part is most Gankee's become the Ganker later on and it will forever be like that.
Well, Just experessing my thoughts. Thanks if you read it and Happy Gaming!
-Fakie
Two points to summarize my counter to your remarks.
1) Accepting murder doesn't make murder any less wrong.
Absoutely correct.
2) 'Not necessarily.'
True "not necessarily"
You use an example again about starting war by striking a low level player to try and provoke an enemy group. In the real world that's called a war crime.
True. And I see no reasn why a game can't encompass this. And that individual or group be labelled as "bad".
You use an example of purging lowbies from an area in order to use it for a single group. That is again a war crime in reality.
Yes, see above.
And you know the interesting part about reality, it's FFA PvP. Really. There's nothing stopping you from walking outside and stabbing your neighbor to death and squatting in their house.
Go ahead, try it.
You won't? Why not?
Ah yes, there's repercussions.
And I think in a good ffa pvp there will be repercussions. Lineage 2 had the "red" system which used dropping items on death and the player/group got a reputation.
And that's what I'm condoning here. Have your PvP, but respect it.
Ambushing another group after ganking a lowbie isn't a war, it's an ambush. You're trying to paint flowery words over something to make it into what it is not. Either own up to the reality of it or stop trying to rebrand what doesn't even qualify as guerilla warfare.
Ok but it's a game. It's not "real life". If you want to say that in the context of the game "it's a warcrime" then fine but so what, that's the game. If the game has repercussions then why can't their be "war crimes"?
You continue to try the 'don't play it since it's not for you' card in spite of admission to favor in FFA PvP and it's ilk.
FFA pvp games have lowbie killing. So what I'm saying is regardless of whether you are in favor of ffa pvp, if there is lowbie killing and you don't like it then don't play. Obviously a game with lowbie killing for "no reason" is not your thing. I respect that. There is no issue. Just like, If I were to go nuts by being ganked, overwhelmed, I would not play .
You claim it's not fair. As I all ready pointe out, it is. It's a matter of balancing action and repercussion if not pre-emptively avoiding the issue through mutual respect.
Regardless of the repercussions, some low lvl player is ganked, killed, camped. So let's change that to "it happens and sometimes the bad guy gets away with it". In a game like Lineage 2 (the only one I can speak to as that is my experience, a little in EVE perhaps) might makes right. That is the game.
Which also leads me back to 'not necessarily'. You again try by example of one character to illustrate how the game can be fine with characters ganking with EvilSeed, but in your own words you noted that his targets weren't singularly lowbies and he didn't do it without risk of death.
First, if he was ganking, he'd have minimal to no risk of death.
He was ganking in lower lvl areas for hours on end and other than calls and cries for help no one could stop him.
Second, if he's ok with dying, then he's not just a ganker, nor just ganking.
Well I think most good players are ok with dying.
Your example doesn't even apply to the argument as a result. It's again an attempt to downplay the point of what's at hand.
No I think it applies. he would camp lower lvl areas and kill lower lvl players as much as he could until he was chased off or killed. Those players were lowbies who were killed without warning. If that is not ganking then what is?
Even more so, I could use it as an example of what I mean in that he's supposedly 'respectful' as yo said. That is the people I'm arguing for modeling.
well so am I. I'm always for people being respectful to others in game.
Does he kill lowbies? Sure, but that's not all he seems to have been doing, and from what you said he's not out to make anyone's life a hell.
Well, in truth he would pk as much as he could get away with regardless of whether people asked him to stop or not. But he wouldn't use foul language or insult his victims. He would also fight others who came as well. So if you want to call him a part time ganker so be it. Seems silly though.
And by example of what you say you have done. 'To be perfectly honest, the only time I've ever done so with my higher lvl characer is when I've killed lower lvl pk'ers.'
You see that right there? You have said a few times now that you don't generally kill lowbies. Now why is it you don't gank lowbies even though it's perfectly acceptable by your game's standards?
you see this is my issue with not only this argumet but some other arguments on this site. there is this "one dimensionality or linear thinking that just because I think somethign is bad for a game means that it's universally bad.
I accept the rules of the game, that lower level players can be killed with impunity. I accept it. I didn't say I did it with the exception of pk'ers and war tags.
I accept that the world is brutal and that players will take over noob areas. It's ok because it labels them as being "bad/evil, etc" and thus they show their quality. I have no problem with this. But if I'm in the world then I'll be a force for "good" as much as I can be.
The minimal/no reward? The minimal/no interest? The minimal/no purpose? The minimal/no strategic reason? The minimal/no quantitative value?
It's just not who I am. If they are a pk'er or wartag they get killed no matter the level. Other than that, it's just not my thing. Doesn't resonate with me. If others want to do it then that's fine for them.
Regardless the reason you end up saying, you don't gank. By not ganking, you're holding yourself to some form or another of standards, even if it is as weak as 'I don't find it that fun'.
That word right there, 'standards'. Holding one to standards. Having any sense of standard. If you do that, then you are acknowledging some form of right and wrong in the situation, regardless of if you're consciously accepting it.
By not ganking you are acknowledging that it is wrong. The fact that you accept that ganking happens as part of the game you play only means that you accept the reality of the situation.
There is no issue here and you are correct. But I accept it as part of the game and a way for players to inhabit the world in a way that generates a larger society or "under society". But I say "so what if it's wrong, there are players who want to be this type of person and I accept that as part of a brutal world game.
Which is why I requested you stab your neighbor. Because real life has that same option. You can accept the reality that it happens, that people can and do kill one another. That people even you know might have died or been killed. But why don't you kill as a result? Because of some standards in your mind that write the action off as wrong.
naw sorry, I'm not biting. I'm not going to equate virtual ganking to me stabbing my neighbor. They are different even though on the surface one might think they are the same. In a game the player wronged will respawn, maybew with loss of items or xp and live to play another day. Most likely they are aware this is part of the game and it won't be a big deal. If I stab my neighbor... well, we all know what that is about now don't we?
It is no different for games. The fact that you can live out a fantasy as a serial killer without repercussion in a game like L2 does not mean the game was designed to condone it.
Actually the game was designed to condone it. The developers said they were making a brutal might makes right no holds barred savage game.
It's as I said before, there's enough else to that game in the form of disincentives to that action that the only thing yo can get out of it is a shot in the dark for that 'ambush strategy' you've mentioned, or because it's a player getting their jollies from killing something that an't defend itself.
I can't accept that because I have standards. I can accept people fighting one another, I can even accept them killing one another. I've accepted it in reality as well as in games. I have dealt with the issue as part of war. That is also where I think it should stay.
The idea that people can kill you at any time doesn't add a sense of life to games. It adds fear. Do you walk around a mall and expect people to sprint by and slit your throat? Probably not.
You don't expect people to in general be that kind of potential threat, yet any one can be that.
So walking into a town shopping, and getting killed by some random person or people is ok though? What's the disconnect?
The lousiest excuse here is to roll on and say 'It's just a game.'
I disagree, it is "just a game and it's not a lousy excuse". You just can't accept that "it's just a game".
er, etc.
Look I'm sorry but you are really trying to conflate a game with real life. And just because you say it's a lousy excuse doesn't mean that has any weight in my book. People are adults and they need to take charge of their own entertainment. If a game allows ganking then they have the choice to participate or not. I know I did and in the end I chose to participate even though I personally only kill lowbies in the above examples.
You might say they are not different and I suppose there are some really nutty people who can't disassociate themselves from that fact but for those of us who have a bit more of a foot in reality we can get into the world and be who we can be and then not stab our neighbor.
I maintain that having a brutal world for a game world is not for everyone but for those people who know what it is about and who are willing to be a part of it, they will find a different sort of game play. It's not for everyone, I can say that. But I won't accept your argument that killing players in a game is equal to stabbing someone in real life or that the people who do it are some sort of psychopath. If you want to believe that then great.
There are psychopaths in pve games as well, believe me, I know. They just don't go around player killing.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Thank you and I completely agree.
But in Lineage 2 and I suppose in EVE though I can't speak to a lot of experience there, one can do whatever one wants. The designers of L2 made it so that it would be a brutal world, scamming was allowed and your fealty went to your clan leader. Many of the early clan decisions revolved around this as clan leaders had the ultimate power in a clan and got the ultimate rewards. Part of this might be cultural and how they would play these games.
But these things were/are allowed.
But that does't mean that all ffa pvp game are made this way. I just cant' speak for any other game other than L2 or a bit of EVE.
Well, maybe a small amount of darkfall but no one as yet has ever ganked me. I wasn't in game long enough to find out as I'm sure it was bound to happen.
edit: and you are correct, just because one can do something doesn't mean they should.
Duping makes sense. That is NOT what the developers wanted. That is finding a bug and exploiting it.
as a point of note, in Lineage 2, some western players discovered that they could lure a siege mob down from the castle siege to destroy the people in town.
Now, technically, in a brutal world that would be accepted. But this was immediately changed because the overriding desire of the developers was for the towns to always be safe havens.
When asked what the korean players did in this situation the gm on the forums answered "they are too busy playing the game to figure out ways on how to get around things to grief people".
So even in a game like L2, there were boundaries.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Would have been nice to have an accurate statement on EvilSeed, as you you added there paints him in a different light than what you said prior, and that does indeed change the context in which he appears.
Your commentary on 'might makes right' and 'brutality' as a theme of the game. I again cite GTA, Saint's Row, and Assassin's Creed.
'Actually the game was designed to condone it. The developers said they were making a brutal might makes right no holds barred savage game.'
That right there is again why I mentioned 'not quite'.
What you just said is distinctly different from what they said. Where does 'brutal might makes right no holds barred savage game' mean 'kill people who can't fight back'.
I interpreted that to mean competition. Competition means challenge. In ganking there is no challenge. It's not savage, it's not brutal, it does nothing to display might.
Again I state that if the game was designed to condone it they wouldn't flag players for doing it and they wouldn't have a distinct lack of reward or subsequent reason.
The fact that they build disincentives into the game like tiered xp, like tiered rewards, like flags, like item drops, etc is a clear display of that.
You say I'm combining reality and games, which you also equate to a 'surface' mentality.
Which is generally false.
There is a big time psychological disconnect for most people between the things done on screen and the things done in real life. You elude to the cases where people can't make the distinctions due to mental illness, but that is not what I was referring to nor addressing in any way. By equating it as such you dismiss the premise and point entirely.
I see the disconnect as a problem. It's the sense that what you are doing isn't to real people, even when you're in PvP. That's a problem. It's a cognitive dissonance between actions and repercussions. The more people disassociate their game and real life actions, the less they can see and acknowledge the influences they have both on one another, the game community, and your own life as a whole.
You also disregard my segment regarding the 'It's just a game.' excuse, which leaves me in predicament of either repeating myself or ignoring the complacent refutation entirely.
EDIT:
'Now, technically, in a brutal world that would be accepted. But this was immediately changed because the overriding desire of the developers was for the towns to always be safe havens.
When asked what the korean players did in this situation the gm on the forums answered "they are too busy playing the game to figure out ways on how to get around things to grief people".'
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
There's only so much typing time to get a point across. If this was an actual conversation it would be a lot easier to cover all needs to be covered without typing/waiting/typing/waiting.
if I missed a detail about evilseed then it was just because I wanted to touch upon him. He indeed would camp outside light elf village and just pick noobs off. But he never insulted anyone, never did anyting other than pick off players he could pick off. He knew that he might die if higher lvl help came but he was of decent level so he wasn't so scared.
In the case of "brutal world", again, it was the might makes right mentality. Remember, players could scam other players and it was allowed.
The disensentives were there to add consequences. This has always been a good thing.
If they didn't want higher lvl players to attack lower lvl players the easy thing would be to just make it so they couldn't be attacked.
Players begged for a pve server, for some way to stave off higher lvl attacks but it was part of the game. Just like the disensentives. It wasn't that the developers were frownign upon it. It would have been as easy to just make it so lower lvl players couldn't be attacked.
Now in the interest of full disclosure, many years later they added a buff that disallowed higher lvl players from atacking lower lvl playesr. However, this was because the population was waning, no longer was the game playing with a robust populaton and instead of allowing players to forge relationships with higher lvl clans/players the new player would never see anyone. And they would be pk'ed.
the game and developers condoned the act they just had players make a choice.
But again, I'm just not going to see eye to eye on your idea of disassociating game play and real life. If we are going to go that far might we then start saying that violent video games create violent players? Violent people?
And I don't buy that. I think that violent video games or any violent content feeds people who are already predisposed to violent actions.
And remember, there are people on this site (and I almost linked one post earlier today) who actually state that they "like to gank/like to be ganked".
And this is the crux of my argument and why we are having this discussion. You don't accept (and correct me if I'm wrong there) that there are people who like to gank and be ganked. I sense that your argument resides solely on the idea that players don't like to be ganked.
But that's not universally true.
And while I don't personally "like" to be ganked (read: it doesn't bring a greater bit of sunshine into my day) I also don't care if I'm ganked. It's a non-issue. And I would (and have) go as far as to say I've had some of the best game play sessions trying to avoid gankers/pk'ers. There is a fun in actually escaping and outsmarting your tormentors.
as far as the example of using the siege mob to grief players, remember, that wasn't built into the game for that purpose. Pk'ing was and there was as system of consequence. However, luring the siege mob was nothing the developers had even imagined players would do, therefore they didn't build anything into the game to stop it. Same with luring raid bosses into cities.
Some players would do this and stores (players set up individual stores) would die and they would drop items.
And... there was no consequence. Which is why the developers hastened to build in safe guards so players couldn't do that anymore.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Actually my premise rested on the design of leveling vs skill based games originally.
I brought up that alongside an example in Mount&Blade, noting how It's generally easier to find both competent/respectabe opponents and how the system inherently deters gankers by not generating an arbitrary insurmountable gap between the avatars abilities.
I accept perfectly fine that there's people who like to gank and be ganked. I just don't like them and find it nigh impossible to respect them. I know when playing a game and I'm fubar, and I accept the inevitable in such situations. I can enjoy those moments in the games I play because they are only able to happen because I'm actually against better skilled or better organized players.
That's also where my revised analogy 'If players don't want to get tackled by a freight train while playing football, they shouldn't be playing a hackneyed version of football where older athletes can drive vehicles on the field.' came in.
I was appealing to the case of the arbitrary difference in ability and inevitably one sided results.
I even said that. 'It's not a fight if there's a clear victor before the fight even starts, then it's just boring.'
I brought up the matter that I had the same experiences in AC and DAoC ffa servers early on too. They were simply more respectable games where the community policed themselves well. They even had public KOS listings for serious offenders.
And you keep making that comment that it must be condoned by the game since it's an option in the game regardless of disincentives.
In Planetside you can kill your team mates. You got negative rep and if you did it enough times you could get flagged. Nothing different about that situation. You wouldn't be banned from the game or anything for doing it, you wouldn't even get a peep out of the devs. Yet, people still knew it wasn't the right thing to do.
Did people still do it? Sometimes yes.
Did other people accept it since it was a part of the game? Hell no.
They took the regulation into their own hands. Ally keeps teamkilling, eject that twit into the water from your dropship next chance you get. Drop that twit from your unit and platoon an keep on trucking, leaving him behind.
And like I said with DAoC and AC. People did self policing. Both games let you kill anyone and everyone on their PvP servers, yet you could walk around most all cities without much in the way of concern.
This was especially amazing considering you looted corpses on AC, so there was potential reward from killing anyone, even lowbies. The reason it wan't rampant was because of a stable minded player base that dealt with the gankers in a swift fashion and did a wonderful job to deter them.
Also, on the real life versus games topic, you again are eluding to something I am mot addressing. Related maybe, but not the same topic.
It's well established that people won't suddenly become homicidal maniacs if they play a violent game. You don't need to take a trip to some exaggerated fantasy to belittle the issue.
The issue itself is that the two are indeed tied still. If you can't accept the causal relation between them then that's fine, but there's a great risk carried with denial.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
My 2 coppers. I play Warhammer on a core ruleset server meaning you are flagged only when you choose to be. The flag timer though is 10 minutes, so if you pass into "enemy territory" while flagged, you are fair game for 10 minutes or so until your flag drops.
So I passed through one of the pvp areas headed to my favorite pig farming cave in enemy territory and along the way a group of 6 must have seen me. I got set up, gathered up my pigs and commenced to slaughtering when this group, 2 40's and 4 assorted 30's, rushed in to try and kill me as my flag had not dropped yet. Now I am fairly high renown ranked and well geared, but even I was shocked that I managed to wipe this group. It was totally exhilirating. This proceeded to go on for over an hour, they would heal up, regroup, wait until I was tanking a half dozen pigs or more then spring the trap. I almost felt bad for them because they just didn't have the skills/renown/gear to dig me out. They got an A for effort, but never managed to overwhelm me. It was the gankee's dream and I got to live it! My only regret is I was so busy trying to stay alive I never managed to get any screenshots, lol.
To me, this was the payback for all the ganks I've endured in my years of mmorpging and what makes me such a huge fan of the genre in spite of the occasional bad seed that griefs or corpse camps.
My first mmorpg was Lineage 2 and I played WoW for several years. My second best 'gank event' was beating a gnome rogue to death on my tauren shaman with a fishing pole in STV.
Warhammer fanatic since '85.
This.
I would rather go into real life surgery with all that goes with that than to spend 15 minutes in a open FFA PvP MMO. That is why I do not play MMOs that have any form of open PvP in them, no matter how good they are (EvE Online I am referring to here specifically). I love Sandbox style design in MMOs because the virtual world feels much more real and alive, but the PvP features (gank, grief, different yes but all the same to me really) that almost all Sandbox MMOs have kills any possible enjoyment I might get from those games.
It's amazing that so many people can not understand my point of view on this...
.... oh wait.... that's what the PvP Players say when they explain their reasons for why they love pvp so much...
We as Players of MMOs have been arguing about this one topic far to long for people not to finally understand. There are PvPers and there are PvEers. That's all, and Devs should stop attempting to make a MMO that caters to both camps... it really cannot be done for each of the groups will be pissed off that the Devs listened to the other side.
I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
...............
"I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
__Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...
That's like parents abusing their kids to take revenge for getting abused by their parents when they were children. Sounds like a criminal-justice problem, not a game problem, to me.