"That is definately wrong. First of all DAOC and EQ1 were very popular, just because now popular means 3 million subscribers or whatefer dose not mean that they were not popular in there prime."
Well since you bring these two games up fron one angle. I'll bring it up from another. UO had full pvp at release... The one thing I remember during 1998 and culminating in March of 1999 was a mass exodus to EQ1 (game didn't go live till 1999 but many of my friends quit uo long before to wait). Why? Because there was no forced pvp. This of course among other things led to Trammel coming into UO .. trying to hold onto more customers.
EQ1 had pvp servers which were the lowest populated servers in the game. You could also go PvP on the normal servers.. But I never saw that many people running around with the glorious "red" name. Not enough to notice and the ones that did really stood out. DAoC which was a realm versus realm game, but you only fought in frontier zones and later battle grounds. DAoC had at least two "dreds" which is what they called the open pvp servers. Just like EQ1 they were consolidated down due to lack of population.
And um yes PvP is coming to EQ2 but... (quotes from the 12/16/05 producers letter).
"There will be two new, separate PvP Ruleset servers to begin with. One will most likely be Exchange-Enabled, the other will not. We will have the ability to add more of either kind when the need arises. "
Its not coming to all EQ2 servers.. part of the reason being:
"This is strict good vs. evil. You're only grouping with others of your alignment, and opposing aligned PCs highlight to you the same way that NPC encounters would. If you're betraying or don't have a city to call home, you're an Exile, and a target for everyone."
If they tried to bring this onto the live servers and tell guilds they could no longer include theit "other" sided members... EQ2 would look much like SWG.. empty.
Once those servers launch you can bet SOE is going to watch the population numbers closely.
I liked to PvP back in the UO days... I can sometimes like rvr in DAoC. I just haven't seen a game based on PvP that has been what I'd call successful in the long run. If you took World of Warcraft and say it had "good" pvp (which is doesn't currently) .. and you made that game only full pvp servers... do you really think it would have 5 million subscribers?
It doesn't matter if pve people (what pvpr's call carebears) want the easy way out. The only thing developers want is profit. When they can do that in a pvp game there will be one entirely based on it.
If PvP was placed into a game that was not originally designed for PvP, then its going to be bad; simple as that. To get a proper pvp system you need to put alot of thought and effort behind it to think of ways to limit what people don't like (ie griefing), and giving players what they do want (Challenging Gameplay).
People didn't leave UO for Everquest because they didn't like PvP, they left because Everquest had much better graphics, more variety of play, and was new and fun. Although I'll admit that the PvP in UO was mishandled from the beginning, where 14 year olds like "noob64" could kill most players simply because they were mages, and because Pking raised stats so much faster then pvm. Also, the world of britannia was much too small at that time, so there was almost no where to hide. Players had to go to certain spots to hunt profitable monsters, or mine ore, etc., and the murderers knew right where people would be.
And you have NO idea the thrill of being an outcast, a Red, murdering and looting for a living, forced to stay clear of towns, waiting in the shadows, feared and loathed but respected with awe.
"If PvP was placed into a game that was not originally designed for PvP, then its going to be bad; simple as that. To get a proper pvp system you need to put alot of thought and effort behind it to think of ways to limit what people don't like (ie griefing), and giving players what they do want (Challenging Gameplay)."
I'd agree with this in priciple. However...
UO had pvp in beta and when it went live. The problems with pvp are not limited to griefing. Another challenge beyond that is exploitation. Using the all names delay edit so that they could cast spells on victims from 3 screens away as an example.
DAoC was a game built around rvr/pvp. However, you still had/have people that run speed hacks and radar to have an advantage. Now of course we have lag casting to add around 1000 units to cast range.. run throughs so casters that need line of sight can't hit you etc etc Yes Mythic bans people or so they claim. I'd agree since they lost 50% of their subscriber base in a year. The game still centers around griefing in many ways and exploits are still common. That still doesn't figure in class balance in pvp for games that have class systems etc. Most nerfs that hurt pve in games with both pve/pvp are pvp related.
The biggest problem with a pvp game imho isn't so much the developer. Its the kind of customer that the game attracts. That doesn't mean every single one either.. but a very small percentage can ruin a game for a large percentage.
There are die hards that will never quit a game they like. However, to be commercially successful you have to get to other aspects of the market. To do that they have to find a way to deal with problem accounts faster. Which still doesn't solve the problem of the people who seem to like starting new accounts constantly just to grief people.
Griefing happens in pve or pvp.. and is another reason you see a lot of instance based thigns in pve games. To me the instancing has made games lose the one thing that keeps me in a MMO and that's community... Its pretty sad that most games are in fact ruined by customers rather than the devs... Unfortunately I don't have the ability to really remove people like that from a game I'm in... And the game companies are so busy trying to fix things they don't either.
Obviously these issues aren't limited to pvp as we see they affect pve games. I think a lot more people would try pvp but developers and customers need more control over problem people. The games really are what we make them.. as consumers. Unfortunately there are enough people out there to ruin most of them for us.
*edited to add the following*
I never said you said EQ2 would bring pvp to all servers. The point was its only going to be two to start. The reason I said it wouldn't hit live was due to how they are doing it not what you said.
As to the people not leaving UO due to pvp comment. I do not know one person that quit UO for EQ's graphics. I do know many that quit due to pvp in fact everyone I knew that left UO then was due to pvp.
The most common comment I heard was... "My wife just wanted to tame animals.. instead she was constantly being attacked and usually killed". To me EQ graphics were horrible at launch... Blocky 3D didn't make it look good compared to another game just because the other was 2D.
Most people I knew that tried AO .. tried it because in the screen shots the characters actually had fingers.. rather than a big blocky hand.
There will always be those people that prefer PvE and at the same time those preferring PvP. However unfortunately its alot easier for people to mess up the fun others have in a game within the PvP environment. However I feel we have to distinguish between open (unrestricted) PvP, restricted PvP (PvP zones, arenas etc), Concentual PvP (Both parties agree) and PvE.
Open PvP In my opiniun these games should focus on PvP only and not on PvE. Let the people that like to PvP, or are in a PvP mood play these games. Dont destroy games for those that like PvE. PvE'rs on turn should not complain if they get PvP'ed in these games as the focus is on PvP, not PvE.
Restricted PvP In these games PvE elements should be present. However I dont think people PvPing should have an advantage over those not wanting to PvP. However keeping a balance here is very difficult due to try to balance the game for PvP and in turn balance for PvE as well. Therefore only very well planned games in my opiniun would succeed here.
Concentual PvP Very similar to Restricted PvP i think BUT with the exception that main focus of the game should be on PvE.
PvE only This is games that is difficult to develop as NPC AI must be good and the game must be very rich and in depth. No use focusing on PvE only and game content allows users with no challenge after a month or two. Therefore game content updates should be regular and ever expanding with a pace that meets the PvE users desires.
One thing most people forget that PvP is that the person PvEing does not influence the PvPers gameplay BUT that the PvPer influences those interested in PvEing every day.
Now more about my personal preferences. I prefer PvE although I used to like PvP alot in the past. What happened? Lets take a few examples.
Example 1 Someone mentioned EVE online. I used to love that game but somewhere along the way the plot was lost. I was one of the first to play the game. Yes and I PvPed alot and also was one of the 0.0 space regulars and made it my home. Player pirates made the game fun as well and we thoroughly enjoyed it. Gate camping was also not bad and sometimes a challenge to see if you could puposefully run a blocade. That was fun but then it changed. PvPers started getting out of hand, creating alts in cheap frigates. Got flagged and got reputation and then killed the character creating a new one. Doing it over and over killing poor newbies and people interested in not PvPing with no way for revenge for those they killed because they are hiding faceless behind a character that wont exist in a few days. The main character getting rich by ganking and looting their prey as the temp character passes all loot to the main which no one knows who it is. Thats pathetic and kills games and yes EVERYONE i played with has quit and some of us were honorable pirates. Honorable as we didnt hide between alt/temp characters for our actions and would for instance ransom a person in 0.0-0.4 space (lawless) and only kill if the person didnt pay the ransom. That made it fun and there were even nice convo's between pirate and prey afterward. But once again that all changed after a little while as people got childish and out of hand exploiting their way to superficial 'success' in their minds destroying the game for everyone not interested in PvPing.
Example 2 My one friend started another game I played and for over an hour got ganked everytime he respawned by a player on a much higher level. The reason: The player said he was bored and thats it. No need to say that after 2 days he quit the game as he didnt mind about grphics, sound, environment. He just wanted to enjoy the game and do his own thing but along came this 12-13 year old (as I cant see someone more mature acting that way) destroying his game. Thats why people quit PvP games as there is a tendency for young kids to go overboard and just kill because they can. And the worst part is not due to better skills but due to being a higher level.
Example 3 PvPers start to dominate games. The reason is that alot of time they actually use it as an exploit. Why work for hours/days to get something if you can just run around killing lower levels and make alot of credits or get items. Character gets richer and can afford and/or loot the best stuff in game. In short time this character has the edge over 99% in game not due to skills but due to no respect for others by just killing. Up comes a new char alot of times and all those richness gets transferred and NOW the new char can enjoy PvE without having to worry about PvP etc due to being strong and when player wants to PvP they just start up their character with stinking reputation. Those not wanting to PvP doesnt have that choice as there are so many of those PvPers runnign along. I dont know if the PvPers realize that sometimes a player not wanting to PvP that day may get killed by other PvPers over and over. Easy for them to say "poor noob, whhhaaaaaa whaaaaaa they cant handle it" BUT they never realize that by the time he killed that player in PvP that might have been the 50th time that day.
I can go on with examples and yes I like PvP BUT I do realize that PvP opens doors for the minority to destroy the game for the majority. Yes, I think most people want to PvP in games as time passes BUT no it should not be forced upon them. What gives one player the right to destroy the fun for another player. If both wants to PvP then its fun, but too many are selfish and only think about themselfes and dont care about the fun the other player wants to have in a game and in the end thats what destroys a game.
On the flipside having controlled PvP (either by concent OR bt arenas) is fun. There equally strong players can challenge each other and skill plays a role resulting in greater satisfaction. Those PvPers killing weaker player are pathetic as thats probably the only small bit of success they have in life and in the process destroy the fun for the true PvPers. A true PvPer is someone PvPing people of the same level/strength and PvPing for a purpose. Not just killing because he can, thats pathetic and once again thats what destroys PvP.
So yes I would love to see PvP in a game BUT not at the cost of destroying the game for those interested in PvE and not interested in PvPing. Therefore I think that if its controlled via concent or arenas its great BUT if not then I will prefer PvE games and yes you can survive without PvP as that is not the be all and end all of everyting.
But without pvp in the battlegrounds form WoW would still be booming. People do enjoy pve, taking down the last dragon, taking on the huge mofo boss in the dungeon. Team work and strategies and loot are things people enjoy.
As it has been said many times WOW had PVP from the jump(BETA DOH!), and im many ways it was just as fun and as important as PVE.. I was there from beta, where you?
You can also have Team work and "Strategies" in PVP...ROFL..and people enjoy that as well.
Listen please just stop posting, I know some person probably ganked you several times before but you need to understand that everyone that PVP's is not a kid.
And I will say this one more time "THOU CANNOT SURVIVE IN THE MMORPG WORLD WITHOUT PVP"
Thats PLAYER VS PLAYER (any form of it) for those of you who do not understand.
And please dont say FFXI, with its built in player base. Because its slowly dying, check there forums. Wonder why?
How many of you MMORPG developers out there have a built in Player base....How many of you MMORPG developers care to prove me wrong? Go for it, you WILL FAIL.
------------------------------ You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
I agree, I don't think that any MMORPG can last for very long without some sort of direct Player vs Player conflict. Why else would you even play online? The idea that people just want to show up and communicate doesn't hold water. Games like The Sims Online that are only communication died a quick death, and games like Everquest 2 that are only PvE have struggled with moderate success and are now dying after only a few years. Everquest 2 is even now putting in some form of PvP, because they've realized that besides what bullshit EA has said about people not wanting to be player killed, that people need to fight each other.
You couldn't have numbers in your name in UO.(a very small part of the reason it is the only real mmoRPg)
You consent to pvp when you buy/play an open pvp/rvr game on pvp servers.
The debate is not that everyone has to pvp. It is that all games need pvp servers to keep their sizeable fanbase in the long run.
It depends if you define success by money/customers or by doing what you set out to do.
My opinion: Even with strategic monsters(which no MMO has) eventually their tactics get dull seeing how they don't adapt. With pvp whenever someone starts using a good tactic, people start looking for a way to defeat it. That is why the content in pvp is never ending. It is ever evolving. I personally would like PvE more if monsters in any MMO were even a bit mentally challenging(not just hp and more damage).
Another thing to note. Don't call something an opinion when it is not. The OP is NOT saying that pvp is better than pve, he IS stating a generalization that can be observed. That generalization is: There is no pure pve game that has been out 5+ years and still has a sizable fanbase. Therefore, they require pvp servers to KEEP a large fanbase. If there was one then the OP's observation would not be 100% correct. You would still be able to generalize that pvp servers are needed though.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open. Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
Originally posted by Entreri28 Things to note: The debate is not that everyone has to pvp. It is that all games need pvp servers to keep their sizeable fanbase in the long run.
That said, a game that is not designed around PvP will, more likely that not, never have good PvP. Games must be designed around it, or not at all.
First off, I gotta agree with the guy that placed the blame for the current situation on the players. This is only one of the reasons why I prefer instances over persistance. When I play an FPS, I leave the game the minute I spot someone shooting through walls and obviously aimboting (the two usually go hand in hand). Same thing in an instance of an MMO. The minute I notice griefers or cheats, I leave the instance and let them play by (with) themselves.
The next problem here is the attitude of PvPers that there is no point unless you're competing with someone else. Is it just me, or does that sound a little anti-social? I personally like to work with other players as a part of a team. If you've ever played the PC version of Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six in co-op mode, you'll understand where I'm comming from. That's not to say I don't like team based PvP, but most of these FFA PvPers that are screaming the loudest don't really seem to be interested in working with anyone. Hence their almost religious insistance that FFA PvP is the ONLY WAY. They want a deathmatch and the rest of us really want something closer to Counter-Strike, in PvP or PvE.
Finally, I'd like to point out that while The Sims tanked, Second Life and There are both doing alright. And to be honest, there are more people being social in chat rooms than are subscribers to all the MMOs on the market combined. Having said this, I think there's a real market hole for a purely social MMO. In MUD terms, these would be called "talkers". Purely social, virtual environments. The interesting thing about talker MUDs is the time that the "players" of talkers spend on their favorite MUD. Most Mudders spend about two years on this or that MUD before moving on to the next one. Talkers will stay on their prefered talker MUD for 10+ years. If you could make a really good social MMO, you could support a large playerbase for DECADES!! I'm thinking it would look alot like Animal Crossing.....
So no, you don't NEED PvP to make a good MMO. You just need something that compells people to play your game ;-)
Take WoW. Consider how many players are on the PvE servers and on the PvP servers. You get the picture.
If you argue or can't understand the relative place of each, nothing I can say will make you understand.
PS: I don't say WoW is a good game, but it is a popular game and I think it represent fairly every group of players. Of course the devs are blind and think raiders are a big part (they are a tiny minority) and they are catering to them and it will create an exodus of non-raiders and raiders will stick and it will be done on a long process, renforcing their beliefs all while harming seriously the Blizzard fanbase.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Once agian.. Im not saying that PVP and PVP only needs to run a MMORPG. Im saying that YOU CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT PVP. The same can be said if you replaced the world PVP with PVE.
In order for a MMORPG to have any legs so to speak, PVP needs to be considered in the game and thought out just as much as PVE is. To do other wise is foolish for MMORPG developers. Just take a look at all the PVE only games that came out recently. Almost ALL of them in the end gave in and HAD to include PVP. AM I WRONG? And in most of those games its clear that it was rushed and poorly implemented. AM I WRONG?
I am a firm believer that PVP cannot be forced in any way shape of form. I am also a firm believer that PVP needs to have RULES. I cannot stand a FFA PVP system, however I do believe that FFP PVP versions of a game needs to be availible for the people who do like it. Same with a all PVE version. This is very easy to accomplish simple by having different types of Server variants. Examples would be
1. One server is Pure PVE for the people who do not have any type of PVP at all.
2. Another server would be PVP and PVE with level restrictions who you can kill, to hinder people that seek out lower lvl characters. Ex would be a lvl 60 running around killing lvl 15's. Simple put if the 60 targeted the lvl 15 he would not be able to attack and vice versa for the 15 so he could not grief the level 60. I think Anarchy Online had the formula for that and it worked great.. Did that mean there wasnt any PVP? HELL no in its prime it was all over the place, I used to have to defend my towers on a nightly basis and it was a blast. I also used to attack when not defending and that was equally fun. Its just PVP was between people around the same level, it was the best system I have seen yet.
3. Another server would be a FFA PVP system were no one is safe anywhere.
4. Other variants can be made from taking polls in the games community. Which is also a good thing since ever player likes to feel like the devs are actually listening to there feedback. But thats another thread on to itself.
The Kicker here is that THEIR ALL PLAYING THE SAME GAME!!!!!
This is really what im getting at here. MMORPG's developers YOU need to stop taking the easy rode and really take YOUR time and get things right. Not including different Variants of your game for different people to enjoy is just lazy and in the long run can only hurt you. If YOU truely wish to survive and make a profit (and not just a quick profit) and a name in this genre YOU need to take this into consideration. It is possible for the pure PVP and/or PVE people to enjoy and love the same game. The greatest MMORPG will understand this concept and make it work. WOW is such a huge success in many ways do to the fact that it came the closes to understanding that Good PVP and PVE can be in the same game. But they still came up short in many ways, not having a RvR concept is what I believe is holding that game back.
------------------------------ You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
Originally posted by Tinybina Once agian.. Im not saying that PVP and PVP only needs to run a MMORPG. Im saying that YOU CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT PVP. The same can be said if you replaced the world PVP with PVE.
First of all, any mmorpg can SURVIVE without PvP. It will do better with PvP in term of sales and number of people playing. You are trying to prove a point that makes no sense, it's exactly like saying that men can not survive without clothing. So yes you are wrong.
Some of you are messed up about people only liking what you like. There are 5billion potential gamers in the world. Of those a percentage actually does it, it's the same for PvP. Single player games were much easier as they're divided into MANY rather clear categories, those categories don't exist YET as mmo but less and less innovative single player games are comming out on the market. The biggest problem with PvP in mmorpgs at the moment is that mmoRPgs aren't played by roleplayers or RPgamers but rather by people who should be playing an mmo combat or crafting type of game. Another problem that has been mentioned in this thread is cheating, cheaters exist in every environment and need to be handled with in a more harsh manner by the company providing the mmo-service. Single player type games were designed to allow cheating whereas mmogs aren't. Some cheaters don't understand the difference between cheating the machine and cheating another player.
I honestly believe that with the right ruleset you could have a great open PvP server/game. After all, we managed to survive as a civilization in the real world with a very small percentage of criminals. I don't see the importance of a large part of rules we abide in the real world to be transponed in a gaming world because the consequences aren't the same. However the criminals face consequences for choosing the path they choose in real life yet they don't face any in a mmorpg and that is where almost every ruleset I've seen has been wrong (there are exceptions and I'm sure people will name old UO or EVE). I make the comparison because it is of importance, for those that don't understand I will restate : "an mmorpg is an alternate life thus creating an alternate society". The point of a society is not to kill everybody because the society wouldn't survive hence the point of having certain rules in an mmorpg.
In the end I still have to see a PvP-based game succesfull at eliminating all grief type of play or reduce it to a bareable minimum. There also is a problem with the advertising of open PvP games, one of the big issues I have with the gaming industry is just that you don't get a good description of the game from the company itself. Sure you can read reviews etc. but that never helps me decide, for every review I see of a game I can find one saying the oposite of the first one. Accept the fact that there are people who do not like PvP but like PwP content and that mmos also feed that market but that most games fail to describe themselves correctly. With the lack of good demoplay comes a problem with people that don't like to waste money on a boxed game. Which afterwards denatures the game for many that liked it from the beginning. You can't satify everyone is the most important lesson mmorpg developpers still need to learn.
Last point, an mmo can not survive for decades if it doesn't have a good social system. People get bored quickly, even with PvP or the most challenging PvE (which does exist, you can make a monster more challenging then any other player, that is a technical fact, most games don't but that's another matter). They do not get bored the same way when they made friends/enemies and have an environment in which they can do something together. That is the only reason a lot of people take the step from chatting to mmogs or the step from single player games to mmogs. Try to broaden your horizons to Player with Player and not just Player versus Player. The world is not only about competition.
wow this is still going? i think it is obvious a game can survive without pvp they have before and I'm willing to bet they will in the future. no the game wont be as successful without the option to pvp but it will survive without it.
Originally posted by angerr wow this is still going? i think it is obvious a game can survive without pvp they have before and I'm willing to bet they will in the future. no the game wont be as successful without the option to pvp but it will survive without it.
Name THREE MMORPG's without any type of PVP WHATS SO EVER that have done well in the sells department and continue to do well (More then 3 years). T H R E E.
GG.. Thanks for playing
Your arguements hold no weight.
------------------------------ You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
Originally posted by Tinybina Originally posted by angerr wow this is still going? i think it is obvious a game can survive without pvp they have before and I'm willing to bet they will in the future. no the game wont be as successful without the option to pvp but it will survive without it. Name THREE MMORPG's that have done well in the sells department and continue to do well (More then 3 years). T H R E E. GG.. Thanks for playing
is that what the topic was about? or was it can a game survive without pvp? GG thanks for playing
Personally I dont mind if the game have pvp or not. As long as the game developers start understanding about giving the player a choice. For example, there is a server, island, area, or zone that is made for only open pvp while at the same time there is a server, island area or zone made for player who dont want pvp. If players were to also have an option of during off pvp so they could spend time doing quests solo or with their buddies or craft.
Just because a game that have pvp wouldnt be more successful then on that doesnt. The game developers need to make a good quality game that have great content and help build a good mature community.
Have played: CoH, DDO EQ2, FFXI, L2, HZ, SoR, and WW2 online
is that what the topic was about? or was it can a game survive without pvp? GG thanks for playing
Try to avoid the question alittle harder next time.. When you wanna man up and answer what was asked of you.. Holla at me.
------------------------------ You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
Originally posted by Tinybina Originally posted by angerr
is that what the topic was about? or was it can a game survive without pvp? GG thanks for playing
Try to avoid the question alittle harder next time.. When you wanna man up and answer what was asked of you.. Holla at me.
i did answer your question, the last time i checked you named the topic "thou cannot survive without pvp"
i am not comparing pvp games to pve i am adding to the thread you started, you said a game cannot survive without pvp and i am disagreeing with you.
I'm sorry you cant handle the fact that i have my own opinion and a very valid one at that, games can and do survive without pvp.
i don't really care how many actually have been highly successful i know one of the most successful of all time was eq and it is a pve game with like 4 pvp servers that were a non factor to its success, thats all i need to know.
man up and answer what was asked of me? i don't need to answer to you or anyone els on this board lol that is some funny stuff.
is that what the topic was about? or was it can a game survive without pvp? GG thanks for playing
Try to avoid the question alittle harder next time.. When you wanna man up and answer what was asked of you.. Holla at me.
I'll rephrase the question to stay on topic for you Tiny, Name three PvE only titles that were cancelled. I'm willing to bet you can't do that either. When you want to grow up and try to defend your opinion with logic I'll be willing to talk to you. Don't make a topic where the answer is clearly yes and defend the no side if you can't handle it. You shouldn't use the word survive if you don't mean survive. I know any game can survive if done correctly, go try ATitD. Surviving doesn't mean "do good in the sales department".
Angerr is correct you are taking your own thread of topic, that's pretty manly of you to admit how you are always so right about things. You got proven wrong just face you lost your argument.
is that what the topic was about? or was it can a game survive without pvp? GG thanks for playing
Try to avoid the question alittle harder next time.. When you wanna man up and answer what was asked of you.. Holla at me.
I'll rephrase the question to stay on topic for you Tiny, Name three PvE only titles that were cancelled. I'm willing to bet you can't do that either.
EnB
UXO
Horizons- Artifact Entertainment just filed for Bankruptcy, yeah thats surviving.. Wonder whats comming next....
And miss me with the crap about staying on topic. Threads all over this forums constantly go from one thing to another, Atleast im keeping it in context with what its all about. Thanks for playing BTW
Your up Angerr. Answer the question!
------------------------------ You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
Originally posted by angerr i don't really care how many actually have been highly successful i know one of the most successful of all time was eq and it is a pve game with like 4 pvp servers that were a non factor to its success, thats all i need to know.
How can a game be a PVE game and have PVP???? You just agreed with me on one of my post that PVEers and PVPers can enjoy the same game if there are different versions of the SAME game for them to play..Thanks
------------------------------ You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
Comments
"That is definately wrong. First of all DAOC and EQ1 were very popular, just because now popular means 3 million subscribers or whatefer dose not mean that they were not popular in there prime."
Well since you bring these two games up fron one angle. I'll bring it up from another. UO had full pvp at release... The one thing I remember during 1998 and culminating in March of 1999 was a mass exodus to EQ1 (game didn't go live till 1999 but many of my friends quit uo long before to wait). Why? Because there was no forced pvp. This of course among other things led to Trammel coming into UO .. trying to hold onto more customers.
EQ1 had pvp servers which were the lowest populated servers in the game. You could also go PvP on the normal servers.. But I never saw that many people running around with the glorious "red" name. Not enough to notice and the ones that did really stood out. DAoC which was a realm versus realm game, but you only fought in frontier zones and later battle grounds. DAoC had at least two "dreds" which is what they called the open pvp servers. Just like EQ1 they were consolidated down due to lack of population.
And um yes PvP is coming to EQ2 but... (quotes from the 12/16/05 producers letter).
"There will be two new, separate PvP Ruleset servers to begin with. One will most likely be Exchange-Enabled, the other will not. We will have the ability to add more of either kind when the need arises. "
Its not coming to all EQ2 servers.. part of the reason being:
"This is strict good vs. evil. You're only grouping with others of your alignment, and opposing aligned PCs highlight to you the same way that NPC encounters would. If you're betraying or don't have a city to call home, you're an Exile, and a target for everyone."
If they tried to bring this onto the live servers and tell guilds they could no longer include theit "other" sided members... EQ2 would look much like SWG.. empty.
Once those servers launch you can bet SOE is going to watch the population numbers closely.
I liked to PvP back in the UO days... I can sometimes like rvr in DAoC. I just haven't seen a game based on PvP that has been what I'd call successful in the long run. If you took World of Warcraft and say it had "good" pvp (which is doesn't currently) .. and you made that game only full pvp servers... do you really think it would have 5 million subscribers?
It doesn't matter if pve people (what pvpr's call carebears) want the easy way out. The only thing developers want is profit. When they can do that in a pvp game there will be one entirely based on it.
If PvP was placed into a game that was not originally designed for PvP, then its going to be bad; simple as that. To get a proper pvp system you need to put alot of thought and effort behind it to think of ways to limit what people don't like (ie griefing), and giving players what they do want (Challenging Gameplay).
People didn't leave UO for Everquest because they didn't like PvP, they left because Everquest had much better graphics, more variety of play, and was new and fun. Although I'll admit that the PvP in UO was mishandled from the beginning, where 14 year olds like "noob64" could kill most players simply because they were mages, and because Pking raised stats so much faster then pvm. Also, the world of britannia was much too small at that time, so there was almost no where to hide. Players had to go to certain spots to hunt profitable monsters, or mine ore, etc., and the murderers knew right where people would be.
And you have NO idea the thrill of being an outcast, a Red, murdering and looting for a living, forced to stay clear of towns, waiting in the shadows, feared and loathed but respected with awe.
In short being BAD.
The new EQ2, better than ever befor !
don't click this link...
"If PvP was placed into a game that was not originally designed for PvP, then its going to be bad; simple as that. To get a proper pvp system you need to put alot of thought and effort behind it to think of ways to limit what people don't like (ie griefing), and giving players what they do want (Challenging Gameplay)."
I'd agree with this in priciple. However...
UO had pvp in beta and when it went live. The problems with pvp are not limited to griefing. Another challenge beyond that is exploitation. Using the all names delay edit so that they could cast spells on victims from 3 screens away as an example.
DAoC was a game built around rvr/pvp. However, you still had/have people that run speed hacks and radar to have an advantage. Now of course we have lag casting to add around 1000 units to cast range.. run throughs so casters that need line of sight can't hit you etc etc Yes Mythic bans people or so they claim. I'd agree since they lost 50% of their subscriber base in a year. The game still centers around griefing in many ways and exploits are still common. That still doesn't figure in class balance in pvp for games that have class systems etc. Most nerfs that hurt pve in games with both pve/pvp are pvp related.
The biggest problem with a pvp game imho isn't so much the developer. Its the kind of customer that the game attracts. That doesn't mean every single one either.. but a very small percentage can ruin a game for a large percentage.
There are die hards that will never quit a game they like. However, to be commercially successful you have to get to other aspects of the market. To do that they have to find a way to deal with problem accounts faster. Which still doesn't solve the problem of the people who seem to like starting new accounts constantly just to grief people.
Griefing happens in pve or pvp.. and is another reason you see a lot of instance based thigns in pve games. To me the instancing has made games lose the one thing that keeps me in a MMO and that's community... Its pretty sad that most games are in fact ruined by customers rather than the devs... Unfortunately I don't have the ability to really remove people like that from a game I'm in... And the game companies are so busy trying to fix things they don't either.
Obviously these issues aren't limited to pvp as we see they affect pve games. I think a lot more people would try pvp but developers and customers need more control over problem people. The games really are what we make them.. as consumers. Unfortunately there are enough people out there to ruin most of them for us.
*edited to add the following*
I never said you said EQ2 would bring pvp to all servers. The point was its only going to be two to start. The reason I said it wouldn't hit live was due to how they are doing it not what you said.
As to the people not leaving UO due to pvp comment. I do not know one person that quit UO for EQ's graphics. I do know many that quit due to pvp in fact everyone I knew that left UO then was due to pvp.
The most common comment I heard was... "My wife just wanted to tame animals.. instead she was constantly being attacked and usually killed". To me EQ graphics were horrible at launch... Blocky 3D didn't make it look good compared to another game just because the other was 2D.
Most people I knew that tried AO .. tried it because in the screen shots the characters actually had fingers.. rather than a big blocky hand.
There will always be those people that prefer PvE and at the same time those preferring PvP. However unfortunately its alot easier for people to mess up the fun others have in a game within the PvP environment. However I feel we have to distinguish between open (unrestricted) PvP, restricted PvP (PvP zones, arenas etc), Concentual PvP (Both parties agree) and PvE.
Open PvP
In my opiniun these games should focus on PvP only and not on PvE. Let the people that like to PvP, or are in a PvP mood play these games. Dont destroy games for those that like PvE. PvE'rs on turn should not complain if they get PvP'ed in these games as the focus is on PvP, not PvE.
Restricted PvP
In these games PvE elements should be present. However I dont think people PvPing should have an advantage over those not wanting to PvP. However keeping a balance here is very difficult due to try to balance the game for PvP and in turn balance for PvE as well. Therefore only very well planned games in my opiniun would succeed here.
Concentual PvP
Very similar to Restricted PvP i think BUT with the exception that main focus of the game should be on PvE.
PvE only
This is games that is difficult to develop as NPC AI must be good and the game must be very rich and in depth. No use focusing on PvE only and game content allows users with no challenge after a month or two. Therefore game content updates should be regular and ever expanding with a pace that meets the PvE users desires.
One thing most people forget that PvP is that the person PvEing does not influence the PvPers gameplay BUT that the PvPer influences those interested in PvEing every day.
Now more about my personal preferences. I prefer PvE although I used to like PvP alot in the past. What happened? Lets take a few examples.
Example 1
Someone mentioned EVE online. I used to love that game but somewhere along the way the plot was lost. I was one of the first to play the game. Yes and I PvPed alot and also was one of the 0.0 space regulars and made it my home. Player pirates made the game fun as well and we thoroughly enjoyed it. Gate camping was also not bad and sometimes a challenge to see if you could puposefully run a blocade. That was fun but then it changed. PvPers started getting out of hand, creating alts in cheap frigates. Got flagged and got reputation and then killed the character creating a new one. Doing it over and over killing poor newbies and people interested in not PvPing with no way for revenge for those they killed because they are hiding faceless behind a character that wont exist in a few days. The main character getting rich by ganking and looting their prey as the temp character passes all loot to the main which no one knows who it is. Thats pathetic and kills games and yes EVERYONE i played with has quit and some of us were honorable pirates. Honorable as we didnt hide between alt/temp characters for our actions and would for instance ransom a person in 0.0-0.4 space (lawless) and only kill if the person didnt pay the ransom. That made it fun and there were even nice convo's between pirate and prey afterward. But once again that all changed after a little while as people got childish and out of hand exploiting their way to superficial 'success' in their minds destroying the game for everyone not interested in PvPing.
Example 2
My one friend started another game I played and for over an hour got ganked everytime he respawned by a player on a much higher level. The reason: The player said he was bored and thats it. No need to say that after 2 days he quit the game as he didnt mind about grphics, sound, environment. He just wanted to enjoy the game and do his own thing but along came this 12-13 year old (as I cant see someone more mature acting that way) destroying his game. Thats why people quit PvP games as there is a tendency for young kids to go overboard and just kill because they can. And the worst part is not due to better skills but due to being a higher level.
Example 3
PvPers start to dominate games. The reason is that alot of time they actually use it as an exploit. Why work for hours/days to get something if you can just run around killing lower levels and make alot of credits or get items. Character gets richer and can afford and/or loot the best stuff in game. In short time this character has the edge over 99% in game not due to skills but due to no respect for others by just killing. Up comes a new char alot of times and all those richness gets transferred and NOW the new char can enjoy PvE without having to worry about PvP etc due to being strong and when player wants to PvP they just start up their character with stinking reputation. Those not wanting to PvP doesnt have that choice as there are so many of those PvPers runnign along. I dont know if the PvPers realize that sometimes a player not wanting to PvP that day may get killed by other PvPers over and over. Easy for them to say "poor noob, whhhaaaaaa whaaaaaa they cant handle it" BUT they never realize that by the time he killed that player in PvP that might have been the 50th time that day.
I can go on with examples and yes I like PvP BUT I do realize that PvP opens doors for the minority to destroy the game for the majority. Yes, I think most people want to PvP in games as time passes BUT no it should not be forced upon them. What gives one player the right to destroy the fun for another player. If both wants to PvP then its fun, but too many are selfish and only think about themselfes and dont care about the fun the other player wants to have in a game and in the end thats what destroys a game.
On the flipside having controlled PvP (either by concent OR bt arenas) is fun. There equally strong players can challenge each other and skill plays a role resulting in greater satisfaction. Those PvPers killing weaker player are pathetic as thats probably the only small bit of success they have in life and in the process destroy the fun for the true PvPers. A true PvPer is someone PvPing people of the same level/strength and PvPing for a purpose. Not just killing because he can, thats pathetic and once again thats what destroys PvP.
So yes I would love to see PvP in a game BUT not at the cost of destroying the game for those interested in PvE and not interested in PvPing. Therefore I think that if its controlled via concent or arenas its great BUT if not then I will prefer PvE games and yes you can survive without PvP as that is not the be all and end all of everyting.
Just my 2 cents
As it has been said many times WOW had PVP from the jump(BETA DOH!), and im many ways it was just as fun and as important as PVE.. I was there from beta, where you?
You can also have Team work and "Strategies" in PVP...ROFL..and people enjoy that as well.
Listen please just stop posting, I know some person probably ganked you several times before but you need to understand that everyone that PVP's is not a kid.
And I will say this one more time "THOU CANNOT SURVIVE IN THE MMORPG WORLD WITHOUT PVP"
Thats PLAYER VS PLAYER (any form of it) for those of you who do not understand.
And please dont say FFXI, with its built in player base. Because its slowly dying, check there forums. Wonder why?
How many of you MMORPG developers out there have a built in Player base....How many of you MMORPG developers care to prove me wrong? Go for it, you WILL FAIL.
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
There must be something genetic about PvP players who must insist that their way is the only way.
Things to note:
You couldn't have numbers in your name in UO.(a very small part of the reason it is the only real mmoRPg)
You consent to pvp when you buy/play an open pvp/rvr game on pvp servers.
The debate is not that everyone has to pvp. It is that all games need pvp servers to keep their sizeable fanbase in the long run.
It depends if you define success by money/customers or by doing what you set out to do.
My opinion: Even with strategic monsters(which no MMO has) eventually their tactics get dull seeing how they don't adapt. With pvp whenever someone starts using a good tactic, people start looking for a way to defeat it. That is why the content in pvp is never ending. It is ever evolving. I personally would like PvE more if monsters in any MMO were even a bit mentally challenging(not just hp and more damage).
Another thing to note. Don't call something an opinion when it is not. The OP is NOT saying that pvp is better than pve, he IS stating a generalization that can be observed. That generalization is: There is no pure pve game that has been out 5+ years and still has a sizable fanbase. Therefore, they require pvp servers to KEEP a large fanbase. If there was one then the OP's observation would not be 100% correct. You would still be able to generalize that pvp servers are needed though.
Your mind is like a parachute, it's only useful when it's open.
Don't forget, you can use the block function on trolls.
For most PVP game you have to subscribe at the begining or you'll be bullied the whole time.
That said, a game that is not designed around PvP will, more likely that not, never have good PvP. Games must be designed around it, or not at all.
Cheers,
Gray Shadow
First off, I gotta agree with the guy that placed the blame for the current situation on the players. This is only one of the reasons why I prefer instances over persistance. When I play an FPS, I leave the game the minute I spot someone shooting through walls and obviously aimboting (the two usually go hand in hand). Same thing in an instance of an MMO. The minute I notice griefers or cheats, I leave the instance and let them play by (with) themselves.
The next problem here is the attitude of PvPers that there is no point unless you're competing with someone else. Is it just me, or does that sound a little anti-social? I personally like to work with other players as a part of a team. If you've ever played the PC version of Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six in co-op mode, you'll understand where I'm comming from. That's not to say I don't like team based PvP, but most of these FFA PvPers that are screaming the loudest don't really seem to be interested in working with anyone. Hence their almost religious insistance that FFA PvP is the ONLY WAY. They want a deathmatch and the rest of us really want something closer to Counter-Strike, in PvP or PvE.
Finally, I'd like to point out that while The Sims tanked, Second Life and There are both doing alright. And to be honest, there are more people being social in chat rooms than are subscribers to all the MMOs on the market combined. Having said this, I think there's a real market hole for a purely social MMO. In MUD terms, these would be called "talkers". Purely social, virtual environments. The interesting thing about talker MUDs is the time that the "players" of talkers spend on their favorite MUD. Most Mudders spend about two years on this or that MUD before moving on to the next one. Talkers will stay on their prefered talker MUD for 10+ years. If you could make a really good social MMO, you could support a large playerbase for DECADES!! I'm thinking it would look alot like Animal Crossing.....
So no, you don't NEED PvP to make a good MMO. You just need something that compells people to play your game ;-)
If you really care about your PvE vs PvP idea...
Take WoW. Consider how many players are on the PvE servers and on the PvP servers. You get the picture.
If you argue or can't understand the relative place of each, nothing I can say will make you understand.
PS: I don't say WoW is a good game, but it is a popular game and I think it represent fairly every group of players. Of course the devs are blind and think raiders are a big part (they are a tiny minority) and they are catering to them and it will create an exodus of non-raiders and raiders will stick and it will be done on a long process, renforcing their beliefs all while harming seriously the Blizzard fanbase.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Once agian.. Im not saying that PVP and PVP only needs to run a MMORPG. Im saying that YOU CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT PVP. The same can be said if you replaced the world PVP with PVE.
In order for a MMORPG to have any legs so to speak, PVP needs to be considered in the game and thought out just as much as PVE is. To do other wise is foolish for MMORPG developers. Just take a look at all the PVE only games that came out recently. Almost ALL of them in the end gave in and HAD to include PVP. AM I WRONG? And in most of those games its clear that it was rushed and poorly implemented. AM I WRONG?
I am a firm believer that PVP cannot be forced in any way shape of form. I am also a firm believer that PVP needs to have RULES. I cannot stand a FFA PVP system, however I do believe that FFP PVP versions of a game needs to be availible for the people who do like it. Same with a all PVE version. This is very easy to accomplish simple by having different types of Server variants. Examples would be
1. One server is Pure PVE for the people who do not have any type of PVP at all.
2. Another server would be PVP and PVE with level restrictions who you can kill, to hinder people that seek out lower lvl characters. Ex would be a lvl 60 running around killing lvl 15's. Simple put if the 60 targeted the lvl 15 he would not be able to attack and vice versa for the 15 so he could not grief the level 60. I think Anarchy Online had the formula for that and it worked great.. Did that mean there wasnt any PVP? HELL no in its prime it was all over the place, I used to have to defend my towers on a nightly basis and it was a blast. I also used to attack when not defending and that was equally fun. Its just PVP was between people around the same level, it was the best system I have seen yet.
3. Another server would be a FFA PVP system were no one is safe anywhere.
4. Other variants can be made from taking polls in the games community. Which is also a good thing since ever player likes to feel like the devs are actually listening to there feedback. But thats another thread on to itself.
The Kicker here is that THEIR ALL PLAYING THE SAME GAME!!!!!
This is really what im getting at here. MMORPG's developers YOU need to stop taking the easy rode and really take YOUR time and get things right. Not including different Variants of your game for different people to enjoy is just lazy and in the long run can only hurt you. If YOU truely wish to survive and make a profit (and not just a quick profit) and a name in this genre YOU need to take this into consideration. It is possible for the pure PVP and/or PVE people to enjoy and love the same game. The greatest MMORPG will understand this concept and make it work. WOW is such a huge success in many ways do to the fact that it came the closes to understanding that Good PVP and PVE can be in the same game. But they still came up short in many ways, not having a RvR concept is what I believe is holding that game back.
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
-
wow this is still going? i think it is obvious a game can survive without pvp they have before and I'm willing to bet they will in the future. no the game wont be as successful without the option to pvp but it will survive without it.
read this http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1044304#post1044304 then come back and talk to me about the vanguard/soe fiasco.....
Name THREE MMORPG's without any type of PVP WHATS SO EVER that have done well in the sells department and continue to do well (More then 3 years). T H R E E.
GG.. Thanks for playing
Your arguements hold no weight.
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
is that what the topic was about? or was it can a game survive without pvp? GG thanks for playing
read this http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1044304#post1044304 then come back and talk to me about the vanguard/soe fiasco.....
Personally I dont mind if the game have pvp or not. As long as the game developers start understanding about giving the player a choice. For example, there is a server, island, area, or zone that is made for only open pvp while at the same time there is a server, island area or zone made for player who dont want pvp. If players were to also have an option of during off pvp so they could spend time doing quests solo or with their buddies or craft.
Just because a game that have pvp wouldnt be more successful then on that doesnt. The game developers need to make a good quality game that have great content and help build a good mature community.
Have played: CoH, DDO EQ2, FFXI, L2, HZ, SoR, and WW2 online
is that what the topic was about? or was it can a game survive without pvp? GG thanks for playing
Try to avoid the question alittle harder next time.. When you wanna man up and answer what was asked of you.. Holla at me.
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
is that what the topic was about? or was it can a game survive without pvp? GG thanks for playing
Try to avoid the question alittle harder next time.. When you wanna man up and answer what was asked of you.. Holla at me.
i did answer your question, the last time i checked you named the topic "thou cannot survive without pvp"
i am not comparing pvp games to pve i am adding to the thread you started, you said a game cannot survive without pvp and i am disagreeing with you.
I'm sorry you cant handle the fact that i have my own opinion and a very valid one at that, games can and do survive without pvp.
i don't really care how many actually have been highly successful i know one of the most successful of all time was eq and it is a pve game with like 4 pvp servers that were a non factor to its success, thats all i need to know.
man up and answer what was asked of me? i don't need to answer to you or anyone els on this board lol that is some funny stuff.
read this http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1044304#post1044304 then come back and talk to me about the vanguard/soe fiasco.....
is that what the topic was about? or was it can a game survive without pvp? GG thanks for playing
Try to avoid the question alittle harder next time.. When you wanna man up and answer what was asked of you.. Holla at me.
I'll rephrase the question to stay on topic for you Tiny, Name three PvE only titles that were cancelled. I'm willing to bet you can't do that either. When you want to grow up and try to defend your opinion with logic I'll be willing to talk to you. Don't make a topic where the answer is clearly yes and defend the no side if you can't handle it. You shouldn't use the word survive if you don't mean survive. I know any game can survive if done correctly, go try ATitD. Surviving doesn't mean "do good in the sales department".
Angerr is correct you are taking your own thread of topic, that's pretty manly of you to admit how you are always so right about things. You got proven wrong just face you lost your argument.
-
is that what the topic was about? or was it can a game survive without pvp? GG thanks for playing
Try to avoid the question alittle harder next time.. When you wanna man up and answer what was asked of you.. Holla at me.
I'll rephrase the question to stay on topic for you Tiny, Name three PvE only titles that were cancelled. I'm willing to bet you can't do that either.
EnB
UXO
Horizons- Artifact Entertainment just filed for Bankruptcy, yeah thats surviving.. Wonder whats comming next....
And miss me with the crap about staying on topic. Threads all over this forums constantly go from one thing to another, Atleast im keeping it in context with what its all about. Thanks for playing BTW
Your up Angerr. Answer the question!
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith