I have a very realistic impression of my own capabilities. I started using a controller on PS when my son was about 2-3 may be I am now 54 years old and I am still bad at it. I so wanted to play Metal Gear Solid and ended up running into walls and just unable to steer using the dual sticks. I cannot play FPS because of motion sickness although I so wanted to play Deus X and Halo. I ended up watching the cutscenes of Halo to find out the story on youtube. I can manage FFXIII which I love BTW even though it is quite linear but I simply love love Final Fantasy. I also can play games like Tales of Xillia.
Person like me will never excel in a FFA PvP game and it has nothing to do with being female my son keeps saying mums cannot play. I just become prey for those who will kill me constantly and I do not blame them I am an easy kill for sure. Knowing this I will not buy or play such a game. I am however willing to play Archage which allows me to choose what risks and when to participate in PvP. If I do venture into a war zone I do so on my terms.
Isn't the derogatory term " carebear" most commonly used in trolling threads and posts ? .. Oh no wait your doing ... research .. right gotcha .. sigh.
(I can't see sandbox fans urging publishers to add open world PvP or other elements to pure themepark games such as WoW etc).
Besides the fact that you're a total liar and the only research you're conducting is "how to improve forum trolling" no one has to push Blizz/Activision to add OW PvP to WoW because it already exists. Just select PvP server and there you go. AAA OW PvP at your fingertips in one of the world's biggest MMO's.
(I can't see sandbox fans urging publishers to add open world PvP or other elements to pure themepark games such as WoW etc).
Besides the fact that you're a total liar and the only research you're conducting is "how to improve forum trolling" no one has to push Blizz/Activision to add OW PvP to WoW because it already exists. Just select PvP server and there you go. AAA OW PvP at your fingertips in one of the world's biggest MMO's.
You're absolutely right WoW does have PvP servers. There is a triple A game right there.
Ok, first of all, did someone pay you to do this research? If so, can I get their contact information?
Secondly, if you genuinely don't understand the reason people dislike OW PvP, then you suck at research. Please find another profession or lord save us from you ever trying to research something with little or no information readily available.
Let's make it simple- you want to gank people to make yourself feel superior to others. We don't like some little kid stabbing us in the back when were fighting some epic boss. So how about this....
We should create an MMO with fake players using ai who will run around acting stupid so you can gank them and get your jollies. You can teabag them, they'll use their ai to send you hateful tells about how you ruined their day, and you can feel like you've done your share to make the world a worse place.
As for games focused on fair-fight pvp? It's called League of Legends. Step on up and watch me burn you! C'mon Tibbers
I think the problem is that players, as a whole, have lost the kind of tolerance and inner discipline necessary to play these games in the sandbox form.
There is no tolerance on the part of the PvPers/gankers for things such as roleplay, or complex systems, or diversity. As a result, they bust out gimmick names ("xXDEATHDEALERXx", "2ub0r13374u"), create a buffbot culture, and metagame. They don't care about making the game, and the suspension of disbelief, work as a whole. They only care about ears and ladder rankings.
Likewise, there is no tolerance on the part of the casuals/questers for such things as ganks, harsh death penalties and so on. As a result, they keep to themselves, stay out of the scrum, and lobby for ever less interaction with people. They don't care about having the kind of game others need from this genre. They only care about their own, personal experience.
See, our tolerance for things we don't like has become small, and I level this charge at the open-world FFA PvP crowd as well as the so-called "carebears". A lot has been written about how the carebears are intolerant, but if they are intolerant, it is only because the FFA PvP guilds and players weren't good stewards of the games when they were in charge.
I remember back in those times before Trammel, before the CU (in SWG). The PvP crowd acted like unregulated loggers, felling trees left and right, bringing in their technologies (buffbots, gimmicky names, voice comms, gamafication, and slave alts) to work the game over with little regard for how their practices destroyed the delicate economic and roleplaying environment. As a result, is it any wonder that the wardens (the developers) stepped in, and put regulations in place to avoid clearcutting?
For my part, I would submit myself to the occasional gank from time to time, if that meant I could have complex economic systems again and good roleplaying environments again. But getting these hardcore gankers and lolzogaggers to respect roleplay and immersion is like teaching a cat to take a dump on the toilet...they just wouldn't even understand the request, let alone be able to do it.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I have no horse in this race either way, but calling someone a "carebear" and then saying your position is 100% neutral is just dishonest. You wouldn't be so insulting if it was just neutral for research purposes.
As far as the topic goes, I don't really follow what you are saying with "claiming every game as their own." The entire topic makes little to no sense as different server types within most games offer different experiences.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV Have played: You name it If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
Please bear in mind, my research is 100% neutral and I have studied this solely based on my observations on themepark crowd behaviour (I can't see sandbox fans urging publishers to add open world PvP or other elements to pure themepark games such as WoW etc). I myself, I like a good game, no matter if it's called themepark or sandbox.
I'm not sure you know what the term "neutral" means given you used a derogatory term to describe the side you didn't like. And what was this research methods you did because I can tell you are way off base here. PVP players demand more PVP in every theme park game created rather it fits or not.
Pretty much this. If I had a nickel for every time someone has requested OW Monster Play in LotRO, I'd be able to build my own MMO. I'd bet it happens FAR more often than PVE players demanding that Darkfall have PVE servers.
In either case, either game dev teams would be INSANE to bring that big a change to their game. It would make SWG NGE look like a bug fix.
Originally posted by summitus Isn't the derogatory term " carebear" most commonly used in trolling threads and posts ? .. Oh no wait your doing ... research .. right gotcha .. sigh.
A lot of times the actual research topic isn't made clear to participants until after the study is complete. In a study on how player avatars affect player behavior (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/virtual-avatars-may-impact-real-world-behavior.html) players were not told they were doing a study on how player avatars might affect behavior, participants were asked to participate in two studies, one on "video games" and a taste test. Had players known what the study was about, they would have adjusted their responses to make themselves look better.
University level studies have to go through an institutional review board and approved. This is mostly to make sure the research is ethical. No harm must come to the participants, and if the researchers do not reveal the true nature of the tests, it has to be determined that being lied to does not harm the participants. "No harm" includes the possibility that people might get upset at being lied to about the research. Finally, when participants finish the surveys or activities they must be debriefed as well, and the nature of the research revealed to them.
The only way this is possibly some form of real university level research is if it's a study on how people react to combative terms or something similar. The title of the thread and the wording used in the post might lead us to think this, except it doesn't seem likely that this would have been approved by an institutional review board. There's no way we can all volunteer to be a part of this study, and participation is never assumed. There's always paperwork.
It could be some sort of marketing research, but that doesn't seem likely either. Even without the ethical considerations, marketing is there to find out what people want, and what they are willing to buy, not deliberately piss them off. They might do that without intending to, but this seems purposeful.
This is far more likely some personal thing, dressed up as "research" and if you read the thread it was pretty quickly noted by several people. Not even the research study that they purportedly participated in sounds credible. Add to this the thread focus lately on PvP v PvE and we probably have one of the usual suspects on an alt account trying to stir up some "fun".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
To counter your question, I see people in beta forums for themepark games where PvP isn't a large focus wanting open world PvP in them. Why do they want this when they know said game is heavily PvE focused?
I personally don't care about PvP in MMORPGs. If I wanted PvP I'd play a shooter. With that said, I don't go around the beta forums of every sandbox game and demand more PvE elements. I simply ignore games that don't suit my style of gaming, which is what most people should do rather than wanting a game to be something that it's not meant to be.
Imo, the disconnect between today's mmorpg PvEr and PvPer is within the design of modern MMOs themselves. Look at WoW or any other run of the mill themepark - no risk vs reward and no consequence to your actions. PK or Ganking doesn't happen in a true sandbox because there are penalties for such an action. Communities beging to govern themselves - players make a name based on their in game deeds. I just think most MMO gamers never played in a true sandbox and have this misguided idea that PvPers are of the WoW variety. Kill without recourse and if killed spawn back up and do it again.. That's not how it works in a functioning online community
Let's just say there are a lot of things you've said I disagree with. Let's clear up a little bit of that.
Sandbox games are like a sandbox, you can build things, or at least have significant influence on the world. There are very few of those out there. Actually Minecraft is a great example of an actual sandbox game.
Theme Park games have a lot of things for you to do other than kill people/creatures.
Hate to say it, but a lot of PVP heavy games that claim to be sandbox are actually themepark with no rides. Just a pretty landscape and the devs quit before fleshing it out.
PVPer, someone who does a lot of pvp.
Griefer, someone that wants to mess with others. Rarely engages in fair fights, tends to be pvpers as well, since that's one of the easiest ways to grief someone.
Most of the people that whine about not being able to kill anyone at any time are actually griefers, not true pvpers.
Hardcore gamer. Some who plays games a lot and is serious about it. There are Hardcore pvpers, but that isn't the same thing as a hardcore gamer, stop getting the two mixed up. And no, a hardcore gamer may very well not engage in pvp a lot. It's the gaming, not the obsession on one particular form of it.
Carebear. Carebear is someone that wants no conflict in the games at all. They don't want players fighting. Heck, they don't even like players killing game creatures. There are almost no carebears in the games. You've probably never even met one in your entire experience with games. Stop calling people that don't care for pvp carebears, you're just being a douche.
It's kind of like calling the guy that owns over a hundred guns but doesn't want to go to the range and shoot targets everyday antigun. That is just inane. Yes, I know this statement will probably be assumed to be an insult itself, but really, how else am I supposed to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your own insulting statements to you? I apologize for the perceived insult, but it's still accurate.
Here's a better question for you:
Why do some players think there is a problem with other players not being killable by them anytime, anyplace?
Also, why do you think everyone has to play the way you want them to? The non-pvpers aren't harming anyone. They aren't interfering with your ability to pvp with other pvpers, so what the heck is your problem?
Honestly, the problem isn't the people that want to play the game without getting ganked, it's the ones that want to insist on ganking everyone. Try taking a sociology class or seeing a counselor, you may have some serious issues.
First of all, I apologize for the provocative thread title and the username. They're for attention reasons only.
I'm doing a small academic research on MMORPG gamer behaviour. The research topic plays largely around the "sandbox vs themepark" subject (even though I personally do not like those terms, about some damn time for the genre to move on!).
Now, putting aside all the prevailing MMORPG market conditions (larger companies are too afraid to produce a big budget sandbox game since themepark is cashcow). What I nor my colleagues have not figured out is: why the "themepark" oriented crowd seem to proclaim every game in this genre to suit their needs? I.e. when publishers are talking about releasing sandbox/RvR/PvP-heavy games I can see tons of articles, forum posts and even people come to me in person saying "Hey, did you hear about this new game X? It sounds awesome, I just hope there isn't any open world PvP in it! I hope the PvP crowd would go play Darkfall/Mortal Online/Eve/Insert some low budget game here."
This brings me to question the typical themepark crowd's true motivations of gaming, are they just hopping from one game to another? There are so many options to choose from in the market for players who prefer themepark games. Why should Archeage/Everquest Next/Black Desert and so many others cater just their needs?
Please bear in mind, my research is 100% neutral and I have studied this solely based on my observations on themepark crowd behaviour (I can't see sandbox fans urging publishers to add open world PvP or other elements to pure themepark games such as WoW etc). I myself, I like a good game, no matter if it's called themepark or sandbox.
Also, please keep in mind: this is not a "sandbox vs themepark" discussion (even though my research subject largely is), but a direct question to themepark fans why every other game should be a themepark game too.
TL;DR: There are tons of themepark games for themepark fans to choose from. Why do they want every sandbox game to mold into a themepark too?
Your conclusion is that those who enjoy PvP in a video game have mental instability issues? OK guy. Again, in a true sandbox governed by a thriving player community, psycho ganker dude doesn't last long before he gets put down. Look no further than L2 at its height of popularity. You're describing PK in a themepark without punishment for death. The design itself lends it to PK. Sandbox (where character rep matters) actually discourages mass murder. You have to be smart about it.
Originally posted by drakaena ...Communities beging to govern themselves - players make a name based on their in game deeds. I just think most MMO gamers never played in a true sandbox and have this misguided idea that PvPers are of the WoW variety. Kill without recourse and if killed spawn back up and do it again.. That's not how it works in a functioning online community
This just reminds me of the ludicrous quote I read last time I played WoW (2+ years ago) - "Being nice to people in a group will get you invited back". Really? Everyone just clicks the 'find a group' button and presto! - they're in a group. The only way someone is going to get a reputation is if they play sooooo much that they become a constant presence in the game for a lot of people. More than likely the griefer will kill a bunch of people then move on to another game or character.
I think the problem is that players, as a whole, have lost the kind of tolerance and inner discipline necessary to play these games in the sandbox form.
You are right ... there is little tolerance. But it is not a problem.
We are talking about entertainment here. I don't see any compeling reason why i should have tolerance for anything. If i don't have fun, i quit. If devs want my money, even my time, cater to what is fun for me. Otherwise, i go somewhere else.
In a sea of endless entertainment option, there is no need to tolerate anything.
I think the problem is that players, as a whole, have lost the kind of tolerance and inner discipline necessary to play these games in the sandbox form.
You are right ... there is little tolerance. But it is not a problem.
We are talking about entertainment here. I don't see any compeling reason why i should have tolerance for anything. If i don't have fun, i quit. If devs want my money, even my time, cater to what is fun for me. Otherwise, i go somewhere else.
In a sea of endless entertainment option, there is no need to tolerate anything.
Not to mention if the tolerance ever existed, players lost it around 1996 or 1997.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by summitus Isn't the derogatory term " carebear" most commonly used in trolling threads and posts ? .. Oh no wait your doing ... research .. right gotcha .. sigh.
A lot of times the actual research topic isn't made clear to participants until after the study is complete. In a study on how player avatars affect player behavior (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/virtual-avatars-may-impact-real-world-behavior.html) players were not told they were doing a study on how player avatars might affect behavior, participants were asked to participate in two studies, one on "video games" and a taste test. Had players known what the study was about, they would have adjusted their responses to make themselves look better.
University level studies have to go through an institutional review board and approved. This is mostly to make sure the research is ethical. No harm must come to the participants, and if the researchers do not reveal the true nature of the tests, it has to be determined that being lied to does not harm the participants. "No harm" includes the possibility that people might get upset at being lied to about the research. Finally, when participants finish the surveys or activities they must be debriefed as well, and the nature of the research revealed to them.
The only way this is possibly some form of real university level research is if it's a study on how people react to combative terms or something similar. The title of the thread and the wording used in the post might lead us to think this, except it doesn't seem likely that this would have been approved by an institutional review board. There's no way we can all volunteer to be a part of this study, and participation is never assumed. There's always paperwork.
It could be some sort of marketing research, but that doesn't seem likely either. Even without the ethical considerations, marketing is there to find out what people want, and what they are willing to buy, not deliberately piss them off. They might do that without intending to, but this seems purposeful.
This is far more likely some personal thing, dressed up as "research" and if you read the thread it was pretty quickly noted by several people. Not even the research study that they purportedly participated in sounds credible. Add to this the thread focus lately on PvP v PvE and we probably have one of the usual suspects on an alt account trying to stir up some "fun".
Well said.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
(I can't see sandbox fans urging publishers to add open world PvP or other elements to pure themepark games such as WoW etc).
Besides the fact that you're a total liar and the only research you're conducting is "how to improve forum trolling" no one has to push Blizz/Activision to add OW PvP to WoW because it already exists. Just select PvP server and there you go. AAA OW PvP at your fingertips in one of the world's biggest MMO's.
Hi!
Despite calling me a liar based on my thread not directly connected to my paper, I thank you for the input!
Just to correct you a little, World of Warcraft does not have open world PvP! You can attack an enemy (a player from another faction) but not everyone, thus rightly not making it open world PvP.
PvPers always insist on acting like open world PvP is a requirement for being a sandbox. It really isn't at all. And plenty of PvErs love sandboxes.
I never understood why the pvp crowd has such a problem with choice. If the "carebears" want to play on a separate consensual pvp only server why does that bother you?
First of all, I apologize for the provocative thread title and the username. They're for attention reasons only.
I'm doing a small academic research on MMORPG gamer behaviour. The research topic plays largely around the "sandbox vs themepark" subject (even though I personally do not like those terms, about some damn time for the genre to move on!).
Now, putting aside all the prevailing MMORPG market conditions (larger companies are too afraid to produce a big budget sandbox game since themepark is cashcow). What I nor my colleagues have not figured out is: why the "themepark" oriented crowd seem to proclaim every game in this genre to suit their needs? I.e. when publishers are talking about releasing sandbox/RvR/PvP-heavy games I can see tons of articles, forum posts and even people come to me in person saying "Hey, did you hear about this new game X? It sounds awesome, I just hope there isn't any open world PvP in it! I hope the PvP crowd would go play Darkfall/Mortal Online/Eve/Insert some low budget game here."
This brings me to question the typical themepark crowd's true motivations of gaming, are they just hopping from one game to another? There are so many options to choose from in the market for players who prefer themepark games. Why should Archeage/Everquest Next/Black Desert and so many others cater just their needs?
Please bear in mind, my research is 100% neutral and I have studied this solely based on my observations on themepark crowd behaviour (I can't see sandbox fans urging publishers to add open world PvP or other elements to pure themepark games such as WoW etc). I myself, I like a good game, no matter if it's called themepark or sandbox.
Also, please keep in mind: this is not a "sandbox vs themepark" discussion (even though my research subject largely is), but a direct question to themepark fans why every other game should be a themepark game too.
TL;DR: There are tons of themepark games for themepark fans to choose from. Why do they want every sandbox game to mold into a themepark too?
I want a PvE Sandbox in the mold of Asheron's Call. A game world so large with tons of PROPER quests (not tasks). So your conclusions are skewed and flawed concerning carebears. I find PvP to be a weird concept in an RPG which mmoRPG's are part of. PvP is best suited to the world of FPS's or MOBA's.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
(I can't see sandbox fans urging publishers to add open world PvP or other elements to pure themepark games such as WoW etc).
Besides the fact that you're a total liar and the only research you're conducting is "how to improve forum trolling" no one has to push Blizz/Activision to add OW PvP to WoW because it already exists. Just select PvP server and there you go. AAA OW PvP at your fingertips in one of the world's biggest MMO's.
Hi!
Despite calling me a liar based on my thread not directly connected to my paper, I thank you for the input!
Just to correct you a little, World of Warcraft does not have open world PvP! You can attack an enemy (a player from another faction) but not everyone, thus rightly not making it open world PvP.
Straight from wikipedia:
Some games offer open PvP (also sometimes called world PvP), where one player can attack another without warning anywhere in the game world.
WoW fits that description on PvP enabled servers. No where in that page is open PvP defined as being able to attack members of your own faction. Thanks, have a good one!
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV Have played: You name it If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
Comments
I have a very realistic impression of my own capabilities. I started using a controller on PS when my son was about 2-3 may be I am now 54 years old and I am still bad at it. I so wanted to play Metal Gear Solid and ended up running into walls and just unable to steer using the dual sticks. I cannot play FPS because of motion sickness although I so wanted to play Deus X and Halo. I ended up watching the cutscenes of Halo to find out the story on youtube. I can manage FFXIII which I love BTW even though it is quite linear but I simply love love Final Fantasy. I also can play games like Tales of Xillia.
Person like me will never excel in a FFA PvP game and it has nothing to do with being female my son keeps saying mums cannot play. I just become prey for those who will kill me constantly and I do not blame them I am an easy kill for sure. Knowing this I will not buy or play such a game. I am however willing to play Archage which allows me to choose what risks and when to participate in PvP. If I do venture into a war zone I do so on my terms.
Besides the fact that you're a total liar and the only research you're conducting is "how to improve forum trolling" no one has to push Blizz/Activision to add OW PvP to WoW because it already exists. Just select PvP server and there you go. AAA OW PvP at your fingertips in one of the world's biggest MMO's.
You're absolutely right WoW does have PvP servers. There is a triple A game right there.
Ok, first of all, did someone pay you to do this research? If so, can I get their contact information?
Secondly, if you genuinely don't understand the reason people dislike OW PvP, then you suck at research. Please find another profession or lord save us from you ever trying to research something with little or no information readily available.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Let's make it simple- you want to gank people to make yourself feel superior to others. We don't like some little kid stabbing us in the back when were fighting some epic boss. So how about this....
We should create an MMO with fake players using ai who will run around acting stupid so you can gank them and get your jollies. You can teabag them, they'll use their ai to send you hateful tells about how you ruined their day, and you can feel like you've done your share to make the world a worse place.
As for games focused on fair-fight pvp? It's called League of Legends. Step on up and watch me burn you! C'mon Tibbers
I think the problem is that players, as a whole, have lost the kind of tolerance and inner discipline necessary to play these games in the sandbox form.
There is no tolerance on the part of the PvPers/gankers for things such as roleplay, or complex systems, or diversity. As a result, they bust out gimmick names ("xXDEATHDEALERXx", "2ub0r13374u"), create a buffbot culture, and metagame. They don't care about making the game, and the suspension of disbelief, work as a whole. They only care about ears and ladder rankings.
Likewise, there is no tolerance on the part of the casuals/questers for such things as ganks, harsh death penalties and so on. As a result, they keep to themselves, stay out of the scrum, and lobby for ever less interaction with people. They don't care about having the kind of game others need from this genre. They only care about their own, personal experience.
See, our tolerance for things we don't like has become small, and I level this charge at the open-world FFA PvP crowd as well as the so-called "carebears". A lot has been written about how the carebears are intolerant, but if they are intolerant, it is only because the FFA PvP guilds and players weren't good stewards of the games when they were in charge.
I remember back in those times before Trammel, before the CU (in SWG). The PvP crowd acted like unregulated loggers, felling trees left and right, bringing in their technologies (buffbots, gimmicky names, voice comms, gamafication, and slave alts) to work the game over with little regard for how their practices destroyed the delicate economic and roleplaying environment. As a result, is it any wonder that the wardens (the developers) stepped in, and put regulations in place to avoid clearcutting?
For my part, I would submit myself to the occasional gank from time to time, if that meant I could have complex economic systems again and good roleplaying environments again. But getting these hardcore gankers and lolzogaggers to respect roleplay and immersion is like teaching a cat to take a dump on the toilet...they just wouldn't even understand the request, let alone be able to do it.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I have no horse in this race either way, but calling someone a "carebear" and then saying your position is 100% neutral is just dishonest. You wouldn't be so insulting if it was just neutral for research purposes.
As far as the topic goes, I don't really follow what you are saying with "claiming every game as their own." The entire topic makes little to no sense as different server types within most games offer different experiences.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
Pretty much this. If I had a nickel for every time someone has requested OW Monster Play in LotRO, I'd be able to build my own MMO. I'd bet it happens FAR more often than PVE players demanding that Darkfall have PVE servers.
In either case, either game dev teams would be INSANE to bring that big a change to their game. It would make SWG NGE look like a bug fix.
A lot of times the actual research topic isn't made clear to participants until after the study is complete. In a study on how player avatars affect player behavior (https://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/virtual-avatars-may-impact-real-world-behavior.html) players were not told they were doing a study on how player avatars might affect behavior, participants were asked to participate in two studies, one on "video games" and a taste test. Had players known what the study was about, they would have adjusted their responses to make themselves look better.
University level studies have to go through an institutional review board and approved. This is mostly to make sure the research is ethical. No harm must come to the participants, and if the researchers do not reveal the true nature of the tests, it has to be determined that being lied to does not harm the participants. "No harm" includes the possibility that people might get upset at being lied to about the research. Finally, when participants finish the surveys or activities they must be debriefed as well, and the nature of the research revealed to them.
The only way this is possibly some form of real university level research is if it's a study on how people react to combative terms or something similar. The title of the thread and the wording used in the post might lead us to think this, except it doesn't seem likely that this would have been approved by an institutional review board. There's no way we can all volunteer to be a part of this study, and participation is never assumed. There's always paperwork.
It could be some sort of marketing research, but that doesn't seem likely either. Even without the ethical considerations, marketing is there to find out what people want, and what they are willing to buy, not deliberately piss them off. They might do that without intending to, but this seems purposeful.
This is far more likely some personal thing, dressed up as "research" and if you read the thread it was pretty quickly noted by several people. Not even the research study that they purportedly participated in sounds credible. Add to this the thread focus lately on PvP v PvE and we probably have one of the usual suspects on an alt account trying to stir up some "fun".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
To counter your question, I see people in beta forums for themepark games where PvP isn't a large focus wanting open world PvP in them. Why do they want this when they know said game is heavily PvE focused?
I personally don't care about PvP in MMORPGs. If I wanted PvP I'd play a shooter. With that said, I don't go around the beta forums of every sandbox game and demand more PvE elements. I simply ignore games that don't suit my style of gaming, which is what most people should do rather than wanting a game to be something that it's not meant to be.
PK or Ganking doesn't happen in a true sandbox because there are penalties for such an action.
Communities beging to govern themselves - players make a name based on their in game deeds.
I just think most MMO gamers never played in a true sandbox and have this misguided idea that PvPers are of the WoW variety. Kill without recourse and if killed spawn back up and do it again..
That's not how it works in a functioning online community
Let's just say there are a lot of things you've said I disagree with. Let's clear up a little bit of that.
Sandbox games are like a sandbox, you can build things, or at least have significant influence on the world. There are very few of those out there. Actually Minecraft is a great example of an actual sandbox game.
Theme Park games have a lot of things for you to do other than kill people/creatures.
Hate to say it, but a lot of PVP heavy games that claim to be sandbox are actually themepark with no rides. Just a pretty landscape and the devs quit before fleshing it out.
PVPer, someone who does a lot of pvp.
Griefer, someone that wants to mess with others. Rarely engages in fair fights, tends to be pvpers as well, since that's one of the easiest ways to grief someone.
Most of the people that whine about not being able to kill anyone at any time are actually griefers, not true pvpers.
Hardcore gamer. Some who plays games a lot and is serious about it. There are Hardcore pvpers, but that isn't the same thing as a hardcore gamer, stop getting the two mixed up. And no, a hardcore gamer may very well not engage in pvp a lot. It's the gaming, not the obsession on one particular form of it.
Carebear. Carebear is someone that wants no conflict in the games at all. They don't want players fighting. Heck, they don't even like players killing game creatures. There are almost no carebears in the games. You've probably never even met one in your entire experience with games. Stop calling people that don't care for pvp carebears, you're just being a douche.
It's kind of like calling the guy that owns over a hundred guns but doesn't want to go to the range and shoot targets everyday antigun. That is just inane. Yes, I know this statement will probably be assumed to be an insult itself, but really, how else am I supposed to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of your own insulting statements to you? I apologize for the perceived insult, but it's still accurate.
Here's a better question for you:
Why do some players think there is a problem with other players not being killable by them anytime, anyplace?
Also, why do you think everyone has to play the way you want them to? The non-pvpers aren't harming anyone. They aren't interfering with your ability to pvp with other pvpers, so what the heck is your problem?
Honestly, the problem isn't the people that want to play the game without getting ganked, it's the ones that want to insist on ganking everyone. Try taking a sociology class or seeing a counselor, you may have some serious issues.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
$$$$
Again, in a true sandbox governed by a thriving player community, psycho ganker dude doesn't last long before he gets put down. Look no further than L2 at its height of popularity. You're describing PK in a themepark without punishment for death. The design itself lends it to PK. Sandbox (where character rep matters) actually discourages mass murder. You have to be smart about it.
This just reminds me of the ludicrous quote I read last time I played WoW (2+ years ago) - "Being nice to people in a group will get you invited back". Really? Everyone just clicks the 'find a group' button and presto! - they're in a group. The only way someone is going to get a reputation is if they play sooooo much that they become a constant presence in the game for a lot of people. More than likely the griefer will kill a bunch of people then move on to another game or character.
You are right ... there is little tolerance. But it is not a problem.
We are talking about entertainment here. I don't see any compeling reason why i should have tolerance for anything. If i don't have fun, i quit. If devs want my money, even my time, cater to what is fun for me. Otherwise, i go somewhere else.
In a sea of endless entertainment option, there is no need to tolerate anything.
Not to mention if the tolerance ever existed, players lost it around 1996 or 1997.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Well said.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Hi!
Despite calling me a liar based on my thread not directly connected to my paper, I thank you for the input!
Just to correct you a little, World of Warcraft does not have open world PvP! You can attack an enemy (a player from another faction) but not everyone, thus rightly not making it open world PvP.
I never understood why the pvp crowd has such a problem with choice. If the "carebears" want to play on a separate consensual pvp only server why does that bother you?
I want a PvE Sandbox in the mold of Asheron's Call. A game world so large with tons of PROPER quests (not tasks). So your conclusions are skewed and flawed concerning carebears. I find PvP to be a weird concept in an RPG which mmoRPG's are part of. PvP is best suited to the world of FPS's or MOBA's.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Straight from wikipedia:
Some games offer open PvP (also sometimes called world PvP), where one player can attack another without warning anywhere in the game world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_versus_player
WoW fits that description on PvP enabled servers. No where in that page is open PvP defined as being able to attack members of your own faction. Thanks, have a good one!
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.