I don't understand why some people are saying a game is either PvP or PvE focused...
If a game world is large enough both should be able to exist without one infringing upon the other. To me it seems that myself and a large portion of the PvP proponents simply want PvP to actually matter within the game world as a whole, instead of just being a little mini game within the game.
The world could never be big enough, there would always be PKers hunting out PvE players for easy kills.
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense. You might as well not have a trinity system and let everyone heal and everyone dodge and everyone revive.....oh wait...this has been done already--->(see GW2)
If a dps related class gets over the tank agro they need to slow down damage or die. Then the tank must use taunt to regain agro. Same with heals. Healer can't over heal or they draw agro and take a dirt nap if the tank isn't fast enuff with taunt. Part of this dynamic also factors in with crowd control, kiting,etc. Basically all these serve purpose well in PvE.
In PvP taunt could maybe be used to switch the target to the tank when tank hits it which would mess with enemy players who had targeted others for heals, buffs, nukes, cc etc.
So taunt would be fun and usable in both PvE and PvP.
Next we have the Age old worry....**they are blocking my PvE with a bunch of people that want to hurt me**
The point of putting dungeons and good crafting nodes out in PvP territory is to make focus spots for PvP to take place as groups battle for the opportunity to hunt in that area. If there are 20 dungeons on release then there will obviously be lots of areas for both PvE and PvP to take place. Even a tough group that was able to kill others and then start into the dungeon may run into another group deeper inside or perhaps a raid. They can choose to fight again or call a truce to get some PvE done or form an alliance for just that session and kick out others that try to come in together.
The outcomes of PvP are up to the players themselves. The game may lay down a ruleset but it's up to us how we work within it.
I get the feeling that "modern day mmo's" that you're referencing are the stale, boring themeparks that almost everybody claims to be sick of. In other words, I could care less what is necessary in your modern day mmo's.
You simply do NOT need to have a taunt ability of any kind, even in games that utilize the holy trinity. There's no reason that you can't have a ranged dps and healer kite mobs and slow down their aggro while the tank continues to pound the mob with melee.
You could even have a situation like this with the most realistic AI: real players! In DFUW there's a healer-type class called the Primalist. One of his abilities is an instant, ranged res that brings people back with most of their stats. A major game changer in any fight basically. Primalists are a high priority target. Ideally you want to kill them as quickly as possible. So what happens? The primalist does his heals, deals a little dmg, etc until an enemy notices him and starts to focus him down. At that point the primalist kites the enemy, uses his shield to block whatever damage he can, all the while his friends are focusing the person that is focusing him. It's up to you and your team to make it not worth the guy's time to focus your squishy target by the squishy target mitigating damage as much as possible and by the rest of the squishy's team to deal damage to the person who is focusing the squishy. You do not need taunts. Taunts are lazy game design and boring.
OK game continuity? You were saying immersion. Shifting the word does make some difference, however PvP is not part of continuity at all. Continuity is about what the Devs do not about what the players do.
They go hand-in-hand. Something that is out of place in the game breaks game continuity and immersion. Things that break immersion are unintended unfortunate shortcomings like game crashes, graphics, etc. If a purposeful feature of the game is working perfectly, it doesn't break continuity and shouldn't reduce immersion. Saying something is immersive isn't a 100% subjective statement, which is what you're trying to turn it into. It's like if you put somebody in a flight simulator at NASA, probably one of the most immersive virtual experiences a person can have, you can't simply say it's not immersive because you don't like to fly.
But if I was in that hypothetical shuttle simulator and instead of system malfunctions I was suddenly attacked by a Russian or Chinese shuttle that would break immersion.
Originally pant to just say "hey that sort of game isn't possible" then that is fine, we will disagree and all go on our merry ways believing each other to be incorrect.
And that is precisely where you are off base time and time again in this particular thread.
Lets just take an even more simplified example:
The point of PVE is to create equipment.
The point of PVP is to destroy equipment.
It is the prerogative of a PVE player to put as much equipment on the market as possible so PVP players will buy it.
It is the prerogative of a PVP player to buy as much equipment from the market as possible.
Now, you are telling me that by this system, this is a pvp game designed for only pvp?
I disagree. If the PVE players all leave the PVP players will have no gear and their goal of "purchase as much equipment as possible" cannot be fulfilled.
If the PVP players all leave the PVE players will have no market to sell their goods.
The system breaks if either group leave.
Unfortunately a good portion of that replacement equipment would be sold to PvE players who got ganked by the PKers.
Sorry Rama a world with FFA PvP is just not fun for those of us that prefer PvE.
My game was an example of interdependence. It was not created as an example of what a fun game should look like. It is just a simplified example of something I posted earlier to maybe help explain to some confused posters what the terms "interdependence" or "integrated systems" means. I never expected anyone to take it seriously as a suggestion for a working game system.
My stance on compromise is that the only true compromise we will find between people who refuse to participate in PVP and those who want integrated PVE/PVP is that we all play separate games that cater to our desires. That or we some day change our minds about what we want.
Come on even a PvE'er will attack and kill a BOT... People don't look at the bright side all the time.. YOU GET TO KILL BOTS!!! and takes their monies!!! But I have seen some nasty bot groups in my day that will melt face if not delt with in the right manner!!! JUST SAYIN
When I see Odjuss, Odnjian, Odranwo and Justy all in one group... ITS GO TIME!!!
Originally posted by Aelious Darkfall is a great example of a PvP centric game but there's only one problem: PvEers won't play it. So come back to the question if there can be a compromise between PvP and PvE. There can be but it involves compromise from both sides and inevitably both will complain I think.
We'll have to see what SoE has in store.
Darkfall was brought up as an example of a game that is reliant on pve, pvp, crafting, harvesting to show that games like that do in fact exist. Games that simply won't work as a "PVE" server.
I think we've lost sight of the fact that this entire discussion stems from someone saying they did not understand why we don't want separate PVE and PVP servers.
This has been explained now, I don't think we should have to prove that such a game is possible to validate the desire. That seems sort of ludicrous to me. I don't see why such a thing is so hard to believe but if we have to go that far to "win the thread" i'll go ahead and concede my point. I'm not really here to win anything.
This happens every time. Every single time. One of the PvE-only proponent says something that is inaccurate or dishonest, we spend pages and pages trying to explain why they're wrong, and during those pages and pages they either change their argument, or just start to ignore you.
I don't think it's that, I just think you'll never convince a PvE player that if this or that is changed they'll like it. It makes perfect sense that a PvP focused game can't have seperate PvE servers. That wasn't the only point of this thread though, it was whether a compromise between the two can be reached. Aparently it can't. I'm not sure what you are referring to that was "dishonest or inaccurate" but any explainations you may have will never change the will of PvE-only players.
Edit
I never said anything about making pve players like anything. I don't believe there is a game for "everybody."
That wasn't the only point of the thread, but it was what we were talking about with other people until our posts get twisted or ignored by people who don't want to admit they were wrong, which is what my post was about. The point of my post (the post you quoted) was to point out that it's not cool to change your argument in the middle of a discussion, it's not cool to just completely ignore major points (or sometimes even entire posts!) when you realize you're wrong, and while we're at it it's not cool to personally attack somebody with some assumption about your personality/character. All of these things happen almost constantly when dealing with the pve-only crowd.
OK game continuity? You were saying immersion. Shifting the word does make some difference, however PvP is not part of continuity at all. Continuity is about what the Devs do not about what the players do.
They go hand-in-hand. Something that is out of place in the game breaks game continuity and immersion. Things that break immersion are unintended unfortunate shortcomings like game crashes, graphics, etc. If a purposeful feature of the game is working perfectly, it doesn't break continuity and shouldn't reduce immersion. Saying something is immersive isn't a 100% subjective statement, which is what you're trying to turn it into. It's like if you put somebody in a flight simulator at NASA, probably one of the most immersive virtual experiences a person can have, you can't simply say it's not immersive because you don't like to fly.
But if I was in that hypothetical shuttle simulator and instead of system malfunctions I was suddenly attacked by a Russian or Chinese shuttle that would break immersion.
I have to side with craftseeker somewhat.
Immersion is defined as "deep mental involvement."
If the minute another player attacks him he jumps up out of his chair cursing, turns off his computer, and goes and watches something on television. (i'm not trying to joke on anyone here, I mean this in good humor) The mental involvement he had with the game is then completely gone isn't it?
It all depends on the person, who they are and how they react to things I suppose.
OK game continuity? You were saying immersion. Shifting the word does make some difference, however PvP is not part of continuity at all. Continuity is about what the Devs do not about what the players do.
They go hand-in-hand. Something that is out of place in the game breaks game continuity and immersion. Things that break immersion are unintended unfortunate shortcomings like game crashes, graphics, etc. If a purposeful feature of the game is working perfectly, it doesn't break continuity and shouldn't reduce immersion. Saying something is immersive isn't a 100% subjective statement, which is what you're trying to turn it into. It's like if you put somebody in a flight simulator at NASA, probably one of the most immersive virtual experiences a person can have, you can't simply say it's not immersive because you don't like to fly.
But if I was in that hypothetical shuttle simulator and instead of system malfunctions I was suddenly attacked by a Russian or Chinese shuttle that would break immersion.
You don't need to insert an unpleasant experience into my analogy, I already had one in there. I said you can't say the simulator isn't immersive simply because you don't like to fly. Immersion is not as subjective as you make it out to be.
OK game continuity? You were saying immersion. Shifting the word does make some difference, however PvP is not part of continuity at all. Continuity is about what the Devs do not about what the players do.
They go hand-in-hand. Something that is out of place in the game breaks game continuity and immersion. Things that break immersion are unintended unfortunate shortcomings like game crashes, graphics, etc. If a purposeful feature of the game is working perfectly, it doesn't break continuity and shouldn't reduce immersion. Saying something is immersive isn't a 100% subjective statement, which is what you're trying to turn it into. It's like if you put somebody in a flight simulator at NASA, probably one of the most immersive virtual experiences a person can have, you can't simply say it's not immersive because you don't like to fly.
But if I was in that hypothetical shuttle simulator and instead of system malfunctions I was suddenly attacked by a Russian or Chinese shuttle that would break immersion.
I have to side with craftseeker somewhat.
Immersion is defined as "deep mental involvement."
If the minute another player attacks him he jumps up out of his chair cursing, turns off his computer, and goes and watches something on television. (i'm not trying to joke on anyone here, I mean this in good humor) The mental involvement he had with the game is then completely gone isn't it?
It all depends on the person, who they are and how they react to things I suppose.
That definition isn't related to video games. I'm sure immersion also means to be submerged in water or something, in some dicitionary. In my opinion immersion in videogames is related to its realism and it's execution. If it doesn't, if it just means "how much do you like it?" then this is a pointless discussion.
That definition isn't related to video games. I'm sure immersion also means to be submerged in water or something, in some dicitionary. In my opinion immersion in videogames is related to its realism and it's execution. If it doesn't, if it just means "how much do you like it?" then this is a pointless discussion.
This is probably the source of why I couldn't understand the reason for the argument then. I have always viewed the concept in its strict dictionary sense and was in fact blind to this definition you guys were operating under!
OK game continuity? You were saying immersion. Shifting the word does make some difference, however PvP is not part of continuity at all. Continuity is about what the Devs do not about what the players do.
They go hand-in-hand. Something that is out of place in the game breaks game continuity and immersion. Things that break immersion are unintended unfortunate shortcomings like game crashes, graphics, etc. If a purposeful feature of the game is working perfectly, it doesn't break continuity and shouldn't reduce immersion. Saying something is immersive isn't a 100% subjective statement, which is what you're trying to turn it into. It's like if you put somebody in a flight simulator at NASA, probably one of the most immersive virtual experiences a person can have, you can't simply say it's not immersive because you don't like to fly.
But if I was in that hypothetical shuttle simulator and instead of system malfunctions I was suddenly attacked by a Russian or Chinese shuttle that would break immersion.
You don't need to insert an unpleasant experience into my analogy, I already had one in there. I said you can't say the simulator isn't immersive simply because you don't like to fly. Immersion is not as subjective as you make it out to be.
No immersion is entirely subjective, it happens inside an individuals head. It can be nothing but subjective. The external things that lead to my immersion can lead others to immersion but their immersion like my immersion is entirely subjective.
OK game continuity? You were saying immersion. Shifting the word does make some difference, however PvP is not part of continuity at all. Continuity is about what the Devs do not about what the players do.
They go hand-in-hand. Something that is out of place in the game breaks game continuity and immersion. Things that break immersion are unintended unfortunate shortcomings like game crashes, graphics, etc. If a purposeful feature of the game is working perfectly, it doesn't break continuity and shouldn't reduce immersion. Saying something is immersive isn't a 100% subjective statement, which is what you're trying to turn it into. It's like if you put somebody in a flight simulator at NASA, probably one of the most immersive virtual experiences a person can have, you can't simply say it's not immersive because you don't like to fly.
But if I was in that hypothetical shuttle simulator and instead of system malfunctions I was suddenly attacked by a Russian or Chinese shuttle that would break immersion.
I have to side with craftseeker somewhat.
Immersion is defined as "deep mental involvement."
If the minute another player attacks him he jumps up out of his chair cursing, turns off his computer, and goes and watches something on television. (i'm not trying to joke on anyone here, I mean this in good humor) The mental involvement he had with the game is then completely gone isn't it?
It all depends on the person, who they are and how they react to things I suppose.
That definition isn't related to video games. I'm sure immersion also means to be submerged in water or something, in some dicitionary. In my opinion immersion in videogames is related to its realism and it's execution. If it doesn't, if it just means "how much do you like it?" then this is a pointless discussion.
LOL, factors like realism and execution can enhance the possibility of immersion but are not immersion. Immersion is a subjective state. It is not just how much you like it either, it is a state where the focus of your consciousness moves into the game world.
OK game continuity? You were saying immersion. Shifting the word does make some difference, however PvP is not part of continuity at all. Continuity is about what the Devs do not about what the players do.
They go hand-in-hand. Something that is out of place in the game breaks game continuity and immersion. Things that break immersion are unintended unfortunate shortcomings like game crashes, graphics, etc. If a purposeful feature of the game is working perfectly, it doesn't break continuity and shouldn't reduce immersion. Saying something is immersive isn't a 100% subjective statement, which is what you're trying to turn it into. It's like if you put somebody in a flight simulator at NASA, probably one of the most immersive virtual experiences a person can have, you can't simply say it's not immersive because you don't like to fly.
But if I was in that hypothetical shuttle simulator and instead of system malfunctions I was suddenly attacked by a Russian or Chinese shuttle that would break immersion.
I have to side with craftseeker somewhat.
Immersion is defined as "deep mental involvement."
If the minute another player attacks him he jumps up out of his chair cursing, turns off his computer, and goes and watches something on television. (i'm not trying to joke on anyone here, I mean this in good humor) The mental involvement he had with the game is then completely gone isn't it?
It all depends on the person, who they are and how they react to things I suppose.
That definition isn't related to video games. I'm sure immersion also means to be submerged in water or something, in some dicitionary. In my opinion immersion in videogames is related to its realism and it's execution. If it doesn't, if it just means "how much do you like it?" then this is a pointless discussion.
LOL, factors like realism and execution can enhance the possibility of immersion but are not immersion. Immersion is a subjective state. It is not just how much you like it either, it is a state where the focus of your consciousness moves into the game world.
By your definition no feature can be objectively called more or less immersive. It's a silly position to take. Realism and good graphics are known to be immersive aspects of games. It's NOT entirely subjective. It may be partially subjective, but it's not totally subjective. The part of it that is objective lends itself to pvp because it's more realistic. Artificial barriers are less realistic and therefore less immersive.
Immersion is defined as "deep mental involvement."
If the minute another player attacks him he jumps up out of his chair cursing, turns off his computer, and goes and watches something on television. (i'm not trying to joke on anyone here, I mean this in good humor) The mental involvement he had with the game is then completely gone isn't it?
It all depends on the person, who they are and how they react to things I suppose.
That definition isn't related to video games. I'm sure immersion also means to be submerged in water or something, in some dicitionary. In my opinion immersion in videogames is related to its realism and it's execution. If it doesn't, if it just means "how much do you like it?" then this is a pointless discussion.
LOL, factors like realism and execution can enhance the possibility of immersion but are not immersion. Immersion is a subjective state. It is not just how much you like it either, it is a state where the focus of your consciousness moves into the game world.
By your definition no feature can be objectively called more or less immersive. It's a silly position to take. Realism and good graphics are known to be immersive aspects of games. It's NOT entirely subjective. It may be partially subjective, but it's not totally subjective. The part of it that is objective lends itself to pvp because it's more realistic. Artificial barriers are less realistic and therefore less immersive.
Not just my definition, it seems to be held by Rama too. As well as being the accepted definition by behavioral psychologists. I expect it is also the definition of the game development community too.
Realism and graphics are factors in increasing the possibility of player immersion, they are not immersive of themselves. Some people will find games with "cartoony' graphics immersive others will find "cartoony" graphics totally preventing immersion. Some people will gain immersion in a game by PvP activity, others like me will find PvP activity totally disconecting.
Fantasy in books, games etc is found to be immersive in a large number of people. Fantasy is not realism. Realism can be a factor in enhancing immersion, it can also be a factor in preventing immersion. Subjective states are like that.
I don't understand why some people are saying a game is either PvP or PvE focused...
If a game world is large enough both should be able to exist without one infringing upon the other. To me it seems that myself and a large portion of the PvP proponents simply want PvP to actually matter within the game world as a whole, instead of just being a little mini game within the game.
The world could never be big enough, there would always be PKers hunting out PvE players for easy kills.
Are people seriously so blind to previous MMOs that managed to do this?
I don't understand why some people are saying a game is either PvP or PvE focused...
If a game world is large enough both should be able to exist without one infringing upon the other. To me it seems that myself and a large portion of the PvP proponents simply want PvP to actually matter within the game world as a whole, instead of just being a little mini game within the game.
The world could never be big enough, there would always be PKers hunting out PvE players for easy kills.
Are people seriously so blind to previous MMOs that managed to do this?
DARK AGE OF CAMELOT
Well you cite one example, and you may be right about DAOC. I did not play it because it said PvP on the box, I suspect a great many PvE players had exactly the same reaction.
But just to be clear on this could you be a PvE player and explore, gather resources and engage in other PvE play completely without being subject to the whims of PKers?
Immersion is defined as "deep mental involvement."
If the minute another player attacks him he jumps up out of his chair cursing, turns off his computer, and goes and watches something on television. (i'm not trying to joke on anyone here, I mean this in good humor) The mental involvement he had with the game is then completely gone isn't it?
It all depends on the person, who they are and how they react to things I suppose.
That definition isn't related to video games. I'm sure immersion also means to be submerged in water or something, in some dicitionary. In my opinion immersion in videogames is related to its realism and it's execution. If it doesn't, if it just means "how much do you like it?" then this is a pointless discussion.
LOL, factors like realism and execution can enhance the possibility of immersion but are not immersion. Immersion is a subjective state. It is not just how much you like it either, it is a state where the focus of your consciousness moves into the game world.
By your definition no feature can be objectively called more or less immersive. It's a silly position to take. Realism and good graphics are known to be immersive aspects of games. It's NOT entirely subjective. It may be partially subjective, but it's not totally subjective. The part of it that is objective lends itself to pvp because it's more realistic. Artificial barriers are less realistic and therefore less immersive.
Not just my definition, it seems to be held by Rama too. As well as being the accepted definition by behavioral psychologists. I expect it is also the definition of the game development community too.
The only thing that matters in the context of this discussion is how it relates to video games. You expect the game development community to agree with you, that doesn't mean anything to me. If you don't think certain aspects of games have objectively been called immersive (such as realism, smooth execution, graphics, etc), then I'm not sure what to tell you.
Realism and graphics are factors in increasing the possibility of player immersion, they are not immersive of themselves. Some people will find games with "cartoony' graphics immersive others will find "cartoony" graphics totally preventing immersion. Some people will gain immersion in a game by PvP activity, others like me will find PvP activity totally disconecting.
Fantasy in books, games etc is found to be immersive in a large number of people. Fantasy is not realism. Realism can be a factor in enhancing immersion, it can also be a factor in preventing immersion. Subjective states are like that.
Your idea of immersion always seems to drift towards what people enjoy.
Immersion is defined as "deep mental involvement."
It all depends on the person, who they are and how they react to things I suppose.
That definition isn't related to video games. I'm sure immersion also means to be submerged in water or something, in some dicitionary. In my opinion immersion in videogames is related to its realism and it's execution. If it doesn't, if it just means "how much do you like it?" then this is a pointless discussion.
LOL, factors like realism and execution can enhance the possibility of immersion but are not immersion. Immersion is a subjective state. It is not just how much you like it either, it is a state where the focus of your consciousness moves into the game world.
By your definition no feature can be objectively called more or less immersive. It's a silly position to take. Realism and good graphics are known to be immersive aspects of games. It's NOT entirely subjective. It may be partially subjective, but it's not totally subjective. The part of it that is objective lends itself to pvp because it's more realistic. Artificial barriers are less realistic and therefore less immersive.
Not just my definition, it seems to be held by Rama too. As well as being the accepted definition by behavioral psychologists. I expect it is also the definition of the game development community too.
The only thing that matters in the context of this discussion is how it relates to video games. You expect the game development community to agree with you, that doesn't mean anything to me. If you don't think certain aspects of games have objectively been called immersive (such as realism, smooth execution, graphics, etc), then I'm not sure what to tell you.
Realism and graphics are factors in increasing the possibility of player immersion, they are not immersive of themselves. Some people will find games with "cartoony' graphics immersive others will find "cartoony" graphics totally preventing immersion. Some people will gain immersion in a game by PvP activity, others like me will find PvP activity totally disconecting.
Fantasy in books, games etc is found to be immersive in a large number of people. Fantasy is not realism. Realism can be a factor in enhancing immersion, it can also be a factor in preventing immersion. Subjective states are like that.
Your idea of immersion always seems to drift towards what people enjoy.
No you always narrowly read what I say as enjoyment. Enjoyment is possible without immersion, immersion is possible without enjoyment (but not commonly think of nightmares).
I bring in things outside of video games in a vain attempt to demonstrate to you that your definition is not correct. Factors that increase the possibility of immersion by a player may be described as immersive but only as a shorthand. As I have already said they are not immersive of themselves.
Immersion is defined as "deep mental involvement."
It all depends on the person, who they are and how they react to things I suppose.
That definition isn't related to video games. I'm sure immersion also means to be submerged in water or something, in some dicitionary. In my opinion immersion in videogames is related to its realism and it's execution. If it doesn't, if it just means "how much do you like it?" then this is a pointless discussion.
LOL, factors like realism and execution can enhance the possibility of immersion but are not immersion. Immersion is a subjective state. It is not just how much you like it either, it is a state where the focus of your consciousness moves into the game world.
By your definition no feature can be objectively called more or less immersive. It's a silly position to take. Realism and good graphics are known to be immersive aspects of games. It's NOT entirely subjective. It may be partially subjective, but it's not totally subjective. The part of it that is objective lends itself to pvp because it's more realistic. Artificial barriers are less realistic and therefore less immersive.
Not just my definition, it seems to be held by Rama too. As well as being the accepted definition by behavioral psychologists. I expect it is also the definition of the game development community too.
The only thing that matters in the context of this discussion is how it relates to video games. You expect the game development community to agree with you, that doesn't mean anything to me. If you don't think certain aspects of games have objectively been called immersive (such as realism, smooth execution, graphics, etc), then I'm not sure what to tell you.
Realism and graphics are factors in increasing the possibility of player immersion, they are not immersive of themselves. Some people will find games with "cartoony' graphics immersive others will find "cartoony" graphics totally preventing immersion. Some people will gain immersion in a game by PvP activity, others like me will find PvP activity totally disconecting.
Fantasy in books, games etc is found to be immersive in a large number of people. Fantasy is not realism. Realism can be a factor in enhancing immersion, it can also be a factor in preventing immersion. Subjective states are like that.
Your idea of immersion always seems to drift towards what people enjoy.
No you always narrowly read what I say as enjoyment. Enjoyment is possible without immersion, immersion is possible without enjoyment (but not commonly think of nightmares).
I bring in things outside of video games in a vain attempt to demonstrate to you that your definition is not correct. Factors that increase the possibility of immersion by a player may be described as immersive but only as a shorthand. As I have already said they are not immersive of themselves.
Here's a good quote from Toby Gard, most known for creating Lara Croft:
"Everyone stores simplified constructions of reality in their mind; schemata that codify the critical features of the world around us. We use our schemata to recognize and interpret everything we experience [...] When we are creating worlds in games, immersion is only possible for the player if we can convince the players that the space is authentic (whether stylized or not.) If the critical features on screen don't match up with the critical features of the player's schemata, then he or she will not be fooled by it."
Your example of a game being cartoony isn't adequate because, as Gard puts it, style is separate from immersion. Immersion is closely tied to realism. Imposing restrictions on pvp is innately an anti-immersive feature. That doesn't mean a game can't be immersive with out it, but it does mean holding all things constant, it's objectively more immersive.
By the way, it may even be immersive for the pve-only crowd. Again, just because they don't like it, doesn't mean it's not immersive. Hell, it could even be TOO immersive for them which is why they don't enjoy it. Maybe they don't like the visceral sensation of being hunted by another player.
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense. You might as well not have a trinity system and let everyone heal and everyone dodge and everyone revive.....oh wait...this has been done already--->(see GW2)
If a dps related class gets over the tank agro they need to slow down damage or die. Then the tank must use taunt to regain agro. Same with heals. Healer can't over heal or they draw agro and take a dirt nap if the tank isn't fast enuff with taunt. Part of this dynamic also factors in with crowd control, kiting,etc. Basically all these serve purpose well in PvE.
In PvP taunt could maybe be used to switch the target to the tank when tank hits it which would mess with enemy players who had targeted others for heals, buffs, nukes, cc etc.
So taunt would be fun and usable in both PvE and PvP.
Next we have the Age old worry....**they are blocking my PvE with a bunch of people that want to hurt me**
The point of putting dungeons and good crafting nodes out in PvP territory is to make focus spots for PvP to take place as groups battle for the opportunity to hunt in that area. If there are 20 dungeons on release then there will obviously be lots of areas for both PvE and PvP to take place. Even a tough group that was able to kill others and then start into the dungeon may run into another group deeper inside or perhaps a raid. They can choose to fight again or call a truce to get some PvE done or form an alliance for just that session and kick out others that try to come in together.
The outcomes of PvP are up to the players themselves. The game may lay down a ruleset but it's up to us how we work within it.
I get the feeling that "modern day mmo's" that you're referencing are the stale, boring themeparks that almost everybody claims to be sick of. In other words, I could care less what is necessary in your modern day mmo's.
You simply do NOT need to have a taunt ability of any kind, even in games that utilize the holy trinity. There's no reason that you can't have a ranged dps and healer kite mobs and slow down their aggro while the tank continues to pound the mob with melee.
You could even have a situation like this with the most realistic AI: real players! In DFUW there's a healer-type class called the Primalist. One of his abilities is an instant, ranged res that brings people back with most of their stats. A major game changer in any fight basically. Primalists are a high priority target. Ideally you want to kill them as quickly as possible. So what happens? The primalist does his heals, deals a little dmg, etc until an enemy notices him and starts to focus him down. At that point the primalist kites the enemy, uses his shield to block whatever damage he can, all the while his friends are focusing the person that is focusing him. It's up to you and your team to make it not worth the guy's time to focus your squishy target by the squishy target mitigating damage as much as possible and by the rest of the squishy's team to deal damage to the person who is focusing the squishy. You do not need taunts. Taunts are lazy game design and boring.
A taunt is a form of agro. Agro is another way of taunting. They are basically the same thing. I have played about 15 or more mmorpg's over the years. All of them had ways to taunt a mob. As a druid I could use snare and a high taunt spell to kite a mob around the room and once I had enough agro from my taunt, others could attack the mob from behind while I kited around. You may have a little agro in your debate, but my taunt is clearly producing more agro
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense. You might as well not have a trinity system and let everyone heal and everyone dodge and everyone revive.....oh wait...this has been done already--->(see GW2)
If a dps related class gets over the tank agro they need to slow down damage or die. Then the tank must use taunt to regain agro. Same with heals. Healer can't over heal or they draw agro and take a dirt nap if the tank isn't fast enuff with taunt. Part of this dynamic also factors in with crowd control, kiting,etc. Basically all these serve purpose well in PvE.
In PvP taunt could maybe be used to switch the target to the tank when tank hits it which would mess with enemy players who had targeted others for heals, buffs, nukes, cc etc.
So taunt would be fun and usable in both PvE and PvP.
Next we have the Age old worry....**they are blocking my PvE with a bunch of people that want to hurt me**
The point of putting dungeons and good crafting nodes out in PvP territory is to make focus spots for PvP to take place as groups battle for the opportunity to hunt in that area. If there are 20 dungeons on release then there will obviously be lots of areas for both PvE and PvP to take place. Even a tough group that was able to kill others and then start into the dungeon may run into another group deeper inside or perhaps a raid. They can choose to fight again or call a truce to get some PvE done or form an alliance for just that session and kick out others that try to come in together.
The outcomes of PvP are up to the players themselves. The game may lay down a ruleset but it's up to us how we work within it.
I get the feeling that "modern day mmo's" that you're referencing are the stale, boring themeparks that almost everybody claims to be sick of. In other words, I could care less what is necessary in your modern day mmo's.
You simply do NOT need to have a taunt ability of any kind, even in games that utilize the holy trinity. There's no reason that you can't have a ranged dps and healer kite mobs and slow down their aggro while the tank continues to pound the mob with melee.
You could even have a situation like this with the most realistic AI: real players! In DFUW there's a healer-type class called the Primalist. One of his abilities is an instant, ranged res that brings people back with most of their stats. A major game changer in any fight basically. Primalists are a high priority target. Ideally you want to kill them as quickly as possible. So what happens? The primalist does his heals, deals a little dmg, etc until an enemy notices him and starts to focus him down. At that point the primalist kites the enemy, uses his shield to block whatever damage he can, all the while his friends are focusing the person that is focusing him. It's up to you and your team to make it not worth the guy's time to focus your squishy target by the squishy target mitigating damage as much as possible and by the rest of the squishy's team to deal damage to the person who is focusing the squishy. You do not need taunts. Taunts are lazy game design and boring.
A taunt is a form of agro. Agro is another way of taunting. They are basically the same thing. I have played about 15 or more mmorpg's over the years. All of them had ways to taunt a mob. As a druid I could use snare and a high taunt spell to kite a mob around the room and once I had enough agro from my taunt, others could attack the mob from behind while I kited around. You may have a little agro in your debate, but my taunt is clearly producing more agro
If you've only played mmo's that have taunts, then why do you think you're qualified to talk about whether games can exist with out it? There are a ton of games that don't have it, trust me.
The fact that your post is basically trying to say that there's no difference between different kinds of taking agro hurts your argument and helps mine. You're supposed to be arguing that taunts are necessary, I'm saying there are other ways to drop and raise agro on mobs. Now you're saying that they're the same thing? Then why are taunts necessary?
Not just my definition, it seems to be held by Rama too. As well as being the accepted definition by behavioral psychologists. I expect it is also the definition of the game development community too.
Realism and graphics are factors in increasing the possibility of player immersion, they are not immersive of themselves. Some people will find games with "cartoony' graphics immersive others will find "cartoony" graphics totally preventing immersion. Some people will gain immersion in a game by PvP activity, others like me will find PvP activity totally disconecting.
Fantasy in books, games etc is found to be immersive in a large number of people. Fantasy is not realism. Realism can be a factor in enhancing immersion, it can also be a factor in preventing immersion. Subjective states are like that.
Your idea of immersion always seems to drift towards what people enjoy.
No you always narrowly read what I say as enjoyment. Enjoyment is possible without immersion, immersion is possible without enjoyment (but not commonly think of nightmares).
I bring in things outside of video games in a vain attempt to demonstrate to you that your definition is not correct. Factors that increase the possibility of immersion by a player may be described as immersive but only as a shorthand. As I have already said they are not immersive of themselves.
Here's a good quote from Toby Gard, most known for creating Lara Croft:
"Everyone stores simplified constructions of reality in their mind; schemata that codify the critical features of the world around us. We use our schemata to recognize and interpret everything we experience [...] When we are creating worlds in games, immersion is only possible for the player if we can convince the players that the space is authentic (whether stylized or not.) If the critical features on screen don't match up with the critical features of the player's schemata, then he or she will not be fooled by it."
Your example of a game being cartoony isn't adequate because, as Gard puts it, style is separate from immersion. Immersion is closely tied to realism. Imposing restrictions on pvp is innately an anti-immersive feature. That doesn't mean a game can't be immersive with out it, but it does mean holding all things constant, it's objectively more immersive.
By the way, it may even be immersive for the pve-only crowd. Again, just because they don't like it, doesn't mean it's not immersive. Hell, it could even be TOO immersive for them which is why they don't enjoy it. Maybe they don't like the visceral sensation of being hunted by another player.
Yep good quote, but it does nothing to negate my position. A critical feature of my schemata is that players do not hunt other players.
Yet again you try to equate what I am saying about immersion with enjoyment. I do not equate those things.
A subjective state can be measured in a test population and some objective evidence obtained about factors that increase the possibility of immersion. But such studies show that any factor can be immersive or non immersive depending on the subject, they also show that at different times the same effects can have a different outcome depending on external factors.
What this all boils down to is if you find PvP immersive that is fine, if you do not that is also fine. If you find PvP immersive on some days and not on others that too is normal. But PvP is never objectively immersive it is always subjectively immersive.
I don't understand why some people are saying a game is either PvP or PvE focused...
If a game world is large enough both should be able to exist without one infringing upon the other. To me it seems that myself and a large portion of the PvP proponents simply want PvP to actually matter within the game world as a whole, instead of just being a little mini game within the game.
The world could never be big enough, there would always be PKers hunting out PvE players for easy kills.
Are people seriously so blind to previous MMOs that managed to do this?
DARK AGE OF CAMELOT
Well you cite one example, and you may be right about DAOC. I did not play it because it said PvP on the box, I suspect a great many PvE players had exactly the same reaction.
But just to be clear on this could you be a PvE player and explore, gather resources and engage in other PvE play completely without being subject to the whims of PKers?
Just a side note: WoW made a huge selling point out of PvP and Battlegrounds, and faction vs. faction PvP. They had a section dedicated in the game manual to the battlegrounds(even though they didn't actually get implemented until like a year later). And, look how many people bought that game
I don't think the gap between PvP and PvE players is as vast as it's made out to be(for the average player). Though, it does seem in the case of PvE players and PvP, they tend to favor systems like battlegrounds and instanced PvP more from what I've seen.
My point being, it's really not so black and white. If a player is interested in the setting and the game itself, they will often find themselves a niche in the game regardless.(Obviously, you aren't one of those people, just saying, in general, that's how it seems)
Taunt and agro are needed and serve a great purpose in modern day mmorpgs.
Without agro and agro control you have a zerg festival with totally random mob movements and attacks that make no sense. You might as well not have a trinity system and let everyone heal and everyone dodge and everyone revive.....oh wait...this has been done already--->(see GW2)
If a dps related class gets over the tank agro they need to slow down damage or die. Then the tank must use taunt to regain agro. Same with heals. Healer can't over heal or they draw agro and take a dirt nap if the tank isn't fast enuff with taunt. Part of this dynamic also factors in with crowd control, kiting,etc. Basically all these serve purpose well in PvE.
In PvP taunt could maybe be used to switch the target to the tank when tank hits it which would mess with enemy players who had targeted others for heals, buffs, nukes, cc etc.
So taunt would be fun and usable in both PvE and PvP.
Next we have the Age old worry....**they are blocking my PvE with a bunch of people that want to hurt me**
The point of putting dungeons and good crafting nodes out in PvP territory is to make focus spots for PvP to take place as groups battle for the opportunity to hunt in that area. If there are 20 dungeons on release then there will obviously be lots of areas for both PvE and PvP to take place. Even a tough group that was able to kill others and then start into the dungeon may run into another group deeper inside or perhaps a raid. They can choose to fight again or call a truce to get some PvE done or form an alliance for just that session and kick out others that try to come in together.
The outcomes of PvP are up to the players themselves. The game may lay down a ruleset but it's up to us how we work within it.
I get the feeling that "modern day mmo's" that you're referencing are the stale, boring themeparks that almost everybody claims to be sick of. In other words, I could care less what is necessary in your modern day mmo's.
You simply do NOT need to have a taunt ability of any kind, even in games that utilize the holy trinity. There's no reason that you can't have a ranged dps and healer kite mobs and slow down their aggro while the tank continues to pound the mob with melee.
You could even have a situation like this with the most realistic AI: real players! In DFUW there's a healer-type class called the Primalist. One of his abilities is an instant, ranged res that brings people back with most of their stats. A major game changer in any fight basically. Primalists are a high priority target. Ideally you want to kill them as quickly as possible. So what happens? The primalist does his heals, deals a little dmg, etc until an enemy notices him and starts to focus him down. At that point the primalist kites the enemy, uses his shield to block whatever damage he can, all the while his friends are focusing the person that is focusing him. It's up to you and your team to make it not worth the guy's time to focus your squishy target by the squishy target mitigating damage as much as possible and by the rest of the squishy's team to deal damage to the person who is focusing the squishy. You do not need taunts. Taunts are lazy game design and boring.
A taunt is a form of agro. Agro is another way of taunting. They are basically the same thing. I have played about 15 or more mmorpg's over the years. All of them had ways to taunt a mob. As a druid I could use snare and a high taunt spell to kite a mob around the room and once I had enough agro from my taunt, others could attack the mob from behind while I kited around. You may have a little agro in your debate, but my taunt is clearly producing more agro
If you've only played mmo's that have taunts, then why do you think you're qualified to talk about whether games can exist with out it? There are a ton of games that don't have it, trust me.
The fact that your post is basically trying to say that there's no difference between different kinds of taking agro hurts your argument and helps mine. You're supposed to be arguing that taunts are necessary, I'm saying there are other ways to drop and raise agro on mobs. Now you're saying that they're the same thing? Then why are taunts necessary?
Taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. Guildwars 2 comes to mind most when I think about zerg. There is a concept of agro but it's bounced around to whoever is the closest much of the time. And it changes at the drop of a hat with a whimsical manor that can't be taken seriously. Anyone that has played through any of the dungeon content can tell you this. Once again it leads to every character having to block/dodge/heal/revive/dps/take hits. The dungeon encounter mechanics were in many ways lowered to the point of bosses showing clear telegraphs of impending attacks and then the rest of the time jumping to whoever they thought needed a bonk for no valid reason. I also played several other games with A.I. that was totally nonsense like Mortal Online when it was released. Maybe you just don't like PvE much? Not sure what point you are even driving at anymore....lol.
Not just my definition, it seems to be held by Rama too. As well as being the accepted definition by behavioral psychologists. I expect it is also the definition of the game development community too.
Realism and graphics are factors in increasing the possibility of player immersion, they are not immersive of themselves. Some people will find games with "cartoony' graphics immersive others will find "cartoony" graphics totally preventing immersion. Some people will gain immersion in a game by PvP activity, others like me will find PvP activity totally disconecting.
Fantasy in books, games etc is found to be immersive in a large number of people. Fantasy is not realism. Realism can be a factor in enhancing immersion, it can also be a factor in preventing immersion. Subjective states are like that.
Your idea of immersion always seems to drift towards what people enjoy.
No you always narrowly read what I say as enjoyment. Enjoyment is possible without immersion, immersion is possible without enjoyment (but not commonly think of nightmares).
I bring in things outside of video games in a vain attempt to demonstrate to you that your definition is not correct. Factors that increase the possibility of immersion by a player may be described as immersive but only as a shorthand. As I have already said they are not immersive of themselves.
Here's a good quote from Toby Gard, most known for creating Lara Croft:
"Everyone stores simplified constructions of reality in their mind; schemata that codify the critical features of the world around us. We use our schemata to recognize and interpret everything we experience [...] When we are creating worlds in games, immersion is only possible for the player if we can convince the players that the space is authentic (whether stylized or not.) If the critical features on screen don't match up with the critical features of the player's schemata, then he or she will not be fooled by it."
Your example of a game being cartoony isn't adequate because, as Gard puts it, style is separate from immersion. Immersion is closely tied to realism. Imposing restrictions on pvp is innately an anti-immersive feature. That doesn't mean a game can't be immersive with out it, but it does mean holding all things constant, it's objectively more immersive.
By the way, it may even be immersive for the pve-only crowd. Again, just because they don't like it, doesn't mean it's not immersive. Hell, it could even be TOO immersive for them which is why they don't enjoy it. Maybe they don't like the visceral sensation of being hunted by another player.
Yep good quote, but it does nothing to negate my position. A critical feature of my schemata is that players do not hunt other players.
Your schemata for what exactly? The way Gard is using it is our schemata for our perception of the world. He's saying that in order to create an immersive world, things shouldn't seem unnaturally out of place, not that they should be all of the things you want them to be. It's not your schemata of the real world that says players shouldn't hunt other players, it's your preference in game type.
Yet again you try to equate what I am saying about immersion with enjoyment. I do not equate those things.
You can say you're not equating them, but the way you describe immersion seems to be describing how much somebody is enjoying the game, not how immersed they are in the world.
A subjective state can be measured in a test population and some objective evidence obtained about factors that increase the possibility of immersion. But such studies show that any factor can be immersive or non immersive depending on the subject, they also show that at different times the same effects can have a different outcome depending on external factors.
You say that such studies show (which studies by the way???) that any factor can be immersive or non immersive... but only using YOUR definition of immersion. For instance, as I've pointed out, somebody may be immersed in the world but not enjoy it and stop playing the game. That could even be due to being too immersed in the game. I wonder why you ignored that part of my post.
What this all boils down to is if you find PvP immersive that is fine, if you do not that is also fine. If you find PvP immersive on some days and not on others that too is normal. But PvP is never objectively immersive it is always subjectively immersive.
Comments
The world could never be big enough, there would always be PKers hunting out PvE players for easy kills.
I get the feeling that "modern day mmo's" that you're referencing are the stale, boring themeparks that almost everybody claims to be sick of. In other words, I could care less what is necessary in your modern day mmo's.
You simply do NOT need to have a taunt ability of any kind, even in games that utilize the holy trinity. There's no reason that you can't have a ranged dps and healer kite mobs and slow down their aggro while the tank continues to pound the mob with melee.
You could even have a situation like this with the most realistic AI: real players! In DFUW there's a healer-type class called the Primalist. One of his abilities is an instant, ranged res that brings people back with most of their stats. A major game changer in any fight basically. Primalists are a high priority target. Ideally you want to kill them as quickly as possible. So what happens? The primalist does his heals, deals a little dmg, etc until an enemy notices him and starts to focus him down. At that point the primalist kites the enemy, uses his shield to block whatever damage he can, all the while his friends are focusing the person that is focusing him. It's up to you and your team to make it not worth the guy's time to focus your squishy target by the squishy target mitigating damage as much as possible and by the rest of the squishy's team to deal damage to the person who is focusing the squishy. You do not need taunts. Taunts are lazy game design and boring.
But if I was in that hypothetical shuttle simulator and instead of system malfunctions I was suddenly attacked by a Russian or Chinese shuttle that would break immersion.
points taken and accepted.
Come on even a PvE'er will attack and kill a BOT... People don't look at the bright side all the time.. YOU GET TO KILL BOTS!!! and takes their monies!!! But I have seen some nasty bot groups in my day that will melt face if not delt with in the right manner!!! JUST SAYIN
When I see Odjuss, Odnjian, Odranwo and Justy all in one group... ITS GO TIME!!!
I never said anything about making pve players like anything. I don't believe there is a game for "everybody."
That wasn't the only point of the thread, but it was what we were talking about with other people until our posts get twisted or ignored by people who don't want to admit they were wrong, which is what my post was about. The point of my post (the post you quoted) was to point out that it's not cool to change your argument in the middle of a discussion, it's not cool to just completely ignore major points (or sometimes even entire posts!) when you realize you're wrong, and while we're at it it's not cool to personally attack somebody with some assumption about your personality/character. All of these things happen almost constantly when dealing with the pve-only crowd.
I have to side with craftseeker somewhat.
Immersion is defined as "deep mental involvement."
If the minute another player attacks him he jumps up out of his chair cursing, turns off his computer, and goes and watches something on television. (i'm not trying to joke on anyone here, I mean this in good humor) The mental involvement he had with the game is then completely gone isn't it?
It all depends on the person, who they are and how they react to things I suppose.
You don't need to insert an unpleasant experience into my analogy, I already had one in there. I said you can't say the simulator isn't immersive simply because you don't like to fly. Immersion is not as subjective as you make it out to be.
That definition isn't related to video games. I'm sure immersion also means to be submerged in water or something, in some dicitionary. In my opinion immersion in videogames is related to its realism and it's execution. If it doesn't, if it just means "how much do you like it?" then this is a pointless discussion.
This is probably the source of why I couldn't understand the reason for the argument then. I have always viewed the concept in its strict dictionary sense and was in fact blind to this definition you guys were operating under!
I will further my understanding.
No immersion is entirely subjective, it happens inside an individuals head. It can be nothing but subjective. The external things that lead to my immersion can lead others to immersion but their immersion like my immersion is entirely subjective.
LOL, factors like realism and execution can enhance the possibility of immersion but are not immersion. Immersion is a subjective state. It is not just how much you like it either, it is a state where the focus of your consciousness moves into the game world.
By your definition no feature can be objectively called more or less immersive. It's a silly position to take. Realism and good graphics are known to be immersive aspects of games. It's NOT entirely subjective. It may be partially subjective, but it's not totally subjective. The part of it that is objective lends itself to pvp because it's more realistic. Artificial barriers are less realistic and therefore less immersive.
Not just my definition, it seems to be held by Rama too. As well as being the accepted definition by behavioral psychologists. I expect it is also the definition of the game development community too.
Realism and graphics are factors in increasing the possibility of player immersion, they are not immersive of themselves. Some people will find games with "cartoony' graphics immersive others will find "cartoony" graphics totally preventing immersion. Some people will gain immersion in a game by PvP activity, others like me will find PvP activity totally disconecting.
Fantasy in books, games etc is found to be immersive in a large number of people. Fantasy is not realism. Realism can be a factor in enhancing immersion, it can also be a factor in preventing immersion. Subjective states are like that.
Are people seriously so blind to previous MMOs that managed to do this?
DARK AGE OF CAMELOT
Well you cite one example, and you may be right about DAOC. I did not play it because it said PvP on the box, I suspect a great many PvE players had exactly the same reaction.
But just to be clear on this could you be a PvE player and explore, gather resources and engage in other PvE play completely without being subject to the whims of PKers?
The only thing that matters in the context of this discussion is how it relates to video games. You expect the game development community to agree with you, that doesn't mean anything to me. If you don't think certain aspects of games have objectively been called immersive (such as realism, smooth execution, graphics, etc), then I'm not sure what to tell you.
Your idea of immersion always seems to drift towards what people enjoy.
No you always narrowly read what I say as enjoyment. Enjoyment is possible without immersion, immersion is possible without enjoyment (but not commonly think of nightmares).
I bring in things outside of video games in a vain attempt to demonstrate to you that your definition is not correct. Factors that increase the possibility of immersion by a player may be described as immersive but only as a shorthand. As I have already said they are not immersive of themselves.
Here's a good quote from Toby Gard, most known for creating Lara Croft:
"Everyone stores simplified constructions of reality in their mind; schemata that codify the critical features of the world around us. We use our schemata to recognize and interpret everything we experience [...] When we are creating worlds in games, immersion is only possible for the player if we can convince the players that the space is authentic (whether stylized or not.) If the critical features on screen don't match up with the critical features of the player's schemata, then he or she will not be fooled by it."
Your example of a game being cartoony isn't adequate because, as Gard puts it, style is separate from immersion. Immersion is closely tied to realism. Imposing restrictions on pvp is innately an anti-immersive feature. That doesn't mean a game can't be immersive with out it, but it does mean holding all things constant, it's objectively more immersive.
By the way, it may even be immersive for the pve-only crowd. Again, just because they don't like it, doesn't mean it's not immersive. Hell, it could even be TOO immersive for them which is why they don't enjoy it. Maybe they don't like the visceral sensation of being hunted by another player.
A taunt is a form of agro. Agro is another way of taunting. They are basically the same thing. I have played about 15 or more mmorpg's over the years. All of them had ways to taunt a mob. As a druid I could use snare and a high taunt spell to kite a mob around the room and once I had enough agro from my taunt, others could attack the mob from behind while I kited around. You may have a little agro in your debate, but my taunt is clearly producing more agro
If you've only played mmo's that have taunts, then why do you think you're qualified to talk about whether games can exist with out it? There are a ton of games that don't have it, trust me.
The fact that your post is basically trying to say that there's no difference between different kinds of taking agro hurts your argument and helps mine. You're supposed to be arguing that taunts are necessary, I'm saying there are other ways to drop and raise agro on mobs. Now you're saying that they're the same thing? Then why are taunts necessary?
Yep good quote, but it does nothing to negate my position. A critical feature of my schemata is that players do not hunt other players.
Yet again you try to equate what I am saying about immersion with enjoyment. I do not equate those things.
A subjective state can be measured in a test population and some objective evidence obtained about factors that increase the possibility of immersion. But such studies show that any factor can be immersive or non immersive depending on the subject, they also show that at different times the same effects can have a different outcome depending on external factors.
What this all boils down to is if you find PvP immersive that is fine, if you do not that is also fine. If you find PvP immersive on some days and not on others that too is normal. But PvP is never objectively immersive it is always subjectively immersive.
Just a side note: WoW made a huge selling point out of PvP and Battlegrounds, and faction vs. faction PvP. They had a section dedicated in the game manual to the battlegrounds(even though they didn't actually get implemented until like a year later). And, look how many people bought that game
I don't think the gap between PvP and PvE players is as vast as it's made out to be(for the average player). Though, it does seem in the case of PvE players and PvP, they tend to favor systems like battlegrounds and instanced PvP more from what I've seen.
My point being, it's really not so black and white. If a player is interested in the setting and the game itself, they will often find themselves a niche in the game regardless.(Obviously, you aren't one of those people, just saying, in general, that's how it seems)
Taunts are necessary to control the fight so it's not just a zerg. Guildwars 2 comes to mind most when I think about zerg. There is a concept of agro but it's bounced around to whoever is the closest much of the time. And it changes at the drop of a hat with a whimsical manor that can't be taken seriously. Anyone that has played through any of the dungeon content can tell you this. Once again it leads to every character having to block/dodge/heal/revive/dps/take hits. The dungeon encounter mechanics were in many ways lowered to the point of bosses showing clear telegraphs of impending attacks and then the rest of the time jumping to whoever they thought needed a bonk for no valid reason. I also played several other games with A.I. that was totally nonsense like Mortal Online when it was released. Maybe you just don't like PvE much? Not sure what point you are even driving at anymore....lol.
Your schemata for what exactly? The way Gard is using it is our schemata for our perception of the world. He's saying that in order to create an immersive world, things shouldn't seem unnaturally out of place, not that they should be all of the things you want them to be. It's not your schemata of the real world that says players shouldn't hunt other players, it's your preference in game type.
You can say you're not equating them, but the way you describe immersion seems to be describing how much somebody is enjoying the game, not how immersed they are in the world.
You say that such studies show (which studies by the way???) that any factor can be immersive or non immersive... but only using YOUR definition of immersion. For instance, as I've pointed out, somebody may be immersed in the world but not enjoy it and stop playing the game. That could even be due to being too immersed in the game. I wonder why you ignored that part of my post.
See above. this is nothing new.