Then, after college, when I had money and time I discovered good wine and good beer.
Another wine drinker here! What do you usually drink? I am mostly a Pinot Noir guy (and by extension, red Burgundy, although i am mostly buying Sonoma or Carneros PN).
I also do NOT agree that minigames is what will attract non-crafters to crafting systems because if minigames is the only thing that draws them then they will just get pissed off
yeh .. why even bother drawing non-crafters to something they don't like and merely tolerate?
exactly. to me the OP title is a non-starter to the entire conversation
I agree with this. Give people who like pvp some pvp, give pve players some pve and give crafting for those who like it.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I also do NOT agree that minigames is what will attract non-crafters to crafting systems because if minigames is the only thing that draws them then they will just get pissed off
yeh .. why even bother drawing non-crafters to something they don't like and merely tolerate?
exactly. to me the OP title is a non-starter to the entire conversation
oh you guys.
When I was in college I was a "non drinker" as far as alcohol was concerned. Rarely ever touched it. I wasn't a fan.
Then, after college, when I had money and time I discovered good wine and good beer. At this point in my life I "do" drink alcohol but only good stuff. Only the best beer, only the best wine.
So, if a crafting system came about that spoke to people in a different way then they might very well be interested in crafting, hence the rest of the discussion.
that example you gave is an example of your lack of full knowedge on to what already exists in alcohol.
It does not represent an example of 'I understand the full scope of crafting but I dont care much for it'
your example is one of ignorance of the subject matter (alcohol).
I would suggest Wurm is that fine glass of wine that most people who do not like to drink have never tried
Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it and not surprising coming from you. This is that linear thinking again. You don't disappoint!
Part of this is because you already have in mind your idea of "perfect crafting" and as you have mentioned quite a few times, WURM seems to encapsulate what you like.
Take someone who is not interested with current crafting systems but then give them the type of crafting goals that I have already listed (which you can't seem to wrap your mind around) and they very well might become crafters.
Then again, in pure Sean style "if you don't like x then you can never like y, end story".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I also do NOT agree that minigames is what will attract non-crafters to crafting systems because if minigames is the only thing that draws them then they will just get pissed off
yeh .. why even bother drawing non-crafters to something they don't like and merely tolerate?
exactly. to me the OP title is a non-starter to the entire conversation
I agree with this. Give people who like pvp some pvp, give pve players some pve and give crafting for those who like it.
But aren't there people who hate open world pvp and say that the only pvp is battlegrounds which then is far different from those who say "battleground pvp sucks the only pvp is open world pvp"?
It's not black or white no matter what Narius and Sean want us to believe.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I also do NOT agree that minigames is what will attract non-crafters to crafting systems because if minigames is the only thing that draws them then they will just get pissed off
yeh .. why even bother drawing non-crafters to something they don't like and merely tolerate?
exactly. to me the OP title is a non-starter to the entire conversation
I agree with this. Give people who like pvp some pvp, give pve players some pve and give crafting for those who like it.
But aren't there people who hate open world pvp and say that the only pvp is battlegrounds which then is far different from those who say "battleground pvp sucks the only pvp is open world pvp"?
It's not black or white no matter what Narius and Sean want us to believe.
I dont know about you but I dont go to work in a dress and high heels. Nor do I choose to wear dress shoes. In fact I wear boots and sometimes tennis shoes.
why cant we have different games for different tastes?
or for large virtual world games why does every player have to play every part of the game? they dont
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Then, after college, when I had money and time I discovered good wine and good beer.
Another wine drinker here! What do you usually drink? I am mostly a Pinot Noir guy (and by extension, red Burgundy, although i am mostly buying Sonoma or Carneros PN).
Lately I have been grooving on a red (meaning blend) Cotes du Rhone. If you try it get the one by Guigal.
Also a huge Merlot fan.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I also do NOT agree that minigames is what will attract non-crafters to crafting systems because if minigames is the only thing that draws them then they will just get pissed off
yeh .. why even bother drawing non-crafters to something they don't like and merely tolerate?
exactly. to me the OP title is a non-starter to the entire conversation
I agree with this. Give people who like pvp some pvp, give pve players some pve and give crafting for those who like it.
But aren't there people who hate open world pvp and say that the only pvp is battlegrounds which then is far different from those who say "battleground pvp sucks the only pvp is open world pvp"?
It's not black or white no matter what Narius and Sean want us to believe.
There are many things. Sorry I didn't write out all the combinations.
As to your quip. A pvp player wants pvp. You add pvp for the pvp player not for the one who hates pvp.
As to the logical absurdity: Player 1 wants to be able to attack any player at anytime. Player 2 never wants to be attacked by other players. They normally can't exist side by side. Allow playing 1 to attack player 2 violates player 2 while preventing that attack violates Player 1. So creating an absurd point based on that FAILS.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Then, after college, when I had money and time I discovered good wine and good beer.
Another wine drinker here! What do you usually drink? I am mostly a Pinot Noir guy (and by extension, red Burgundy, although i am mostly buying Sonoma or Carneros PN).
Lately I have been grooving on a red (meaning blend) Cotes du Rhone. If you try it get the one by Guigal.
Also a huge Merlot fan.
I also drink Merlot ... i believe i had a good Merlot/Cabinet blend before .. though I can't remember the label. I will remember Guigal .. thanks for the tip.
But aren't there people who hate open world pvp and say that the only pvp is battlegrounds which then is far different from those who say "battleground pvp sucks the only pvp is open world pvp"?
It's not black or white no matter what Narius and Sean want us to believe.
It is pretty black & white as you described it.
So some people hate open world pvp (me) and like pvp in a BG. So they play games with battleground pvp & no open pvp.
Some people say "battleground pvp sucks the only pvp is open world pvp" and they play games with open pvp and no battle ground.
If any group cannot find a game they like, that means there are not enough customers in a particular group for devs to take notice.
Seems pretty black & white, and obvious to me. So what is the confusion?
My taste in alcohol sort of matches my post in the nostalgia thread - I only like sweet alcohols, preferably fizzy: lambic, mead, cider, fruit wine. Which puts me in a position where I know exactly what I like and why, but it doesn't match any major demographic so people either can't fathom why I would like that or have never had lambic or mead and don't care about stuff they don't know the taste of. *sigh*
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
I would like to see crafting, or economics more generally, become a major driver of player interaction in worlds based around conflict.
After playing a lot of various games, esp. EVE, I've noticed that there is usually a huge surplus of redundant production capacity. It's usually a buyer's market even in competitive or desireable goods. Rarity mechanics usually play a problematic feature as well, with 90% of items being worthless. In EVE, the rate of item destruction is trivial compared to the potential rate of item creation. This should create a situation of competition, but it doesn't.
What I'd really like to see is a requirement for crafting players to become very specialized, but not permanently wedded to someething they were forced to choose on day one. Not so much as in the acquisition of permanent skills, but in risked investments. I'd like to see a player setup a factory specifically designed to turn out a specific item with maximum efficiency. There could be thousands of players operating many hundreds of different factories along these lines, all providing a very wide range of specialized goods, preferably all with some sort of specialized utility.
What's interesting here is competition. When you're a specialist, you start to know who your competitors are. They then become targets for conflict with the goal of increasing their costs of doing business, gaining market advantage over them, or completely forcing them out and into a new line of work where they will then find conflict with a new group of players. My goal then is to sabotage or destroy the other player's factory, or just force them into more peripheral markets. EVE markets are not well distributed because there's no disincentive for them to heavily centralized as well as anonymous.
To moderate the inclination towards shooting everything that moves, conflicts have to be expensive for all sides. There has to be some incentive at the end to recover something, but only by winning and only by being invested in that specialized market.
EVE is plain old not good at this. It came close during the Technetium wars, but CCP interceded to make sure nothing interesting could happen. Someday I hope there will be a real market pvp game.
I would like to see crafting, or economics more generally, become a major driver of player interaction in worlds based around conflict.
and I would like to see less player interaction .. and more focus on new combat & environmental mechanics. I guess people have different preferences.
well I am not for 'new combat' because I think games have 'combat' aspect of real life and fiction fully covered and over-fucked so it would be nice to see gaming expand out of that box a bit.
That said, I agree on social. If crafting was a way to be social I would not play said game 'go find your own fucking friends' as I would like to say I am busy making something
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm more so pointing out the flaws of currently-used crafting systems.
ah I see.
well like all systems something could be improved on. However I think the OPs view that 'crafting' should be made better for the 'non-crafter' is a non-starter.
its like saying 'how do we make golf better for those who dont like golf' or how do we make MMO combat better for those who dont like combat.
It's not so much a question of how to make people who dislike golf suddenly like golf. It's more analogous to trying to get people who dislike golf to not particularly be bothered that some people they know play golf. Now, in the case of golf, this usually pretty easy. If you don't like golf, don't go to a golf course.
But crafting so commonly is integrated with getting gear that people need for combat that the way crafting is done affects people who want to participate in combat but don't like crafting. The goal is for a game to have a good crafting system that people who like crafting can participate in and enjoy, without breaking the game for people who dislike crafting and don't want to bother.
I referred to the Law of Truly Large Numbers, which is this;
"With a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen."
Coupled with the Law of Inevitability, which is this;
"One of the complete set of all possible outcomes of a random event must occur."
I pulled the quote from his book and you can even go to his own web page to see the expanded context he wrote for the definition.
It's rather disingenuous for you to call him your contemporary when you can't even refer to the right laws (law of large numbers is not the same as law of truly large numbers) and you repeatedly call the definitions of the laws wrong when I am quoting the literal description of the laws as they are stated within the book in which Hand defined them.
If you would wish to read back to the post of mine you quoted you can even see my statement;
"The discreet point being that within all the possible outcomes given random selection, duplicates and the devaluation of "rares" is inevitable."
I should thank you for making these mistakes though as it lets me strengthen my argument by also referencing the law of large numbers alongside the other two. Since the law of large numbers states this; "The average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
Which exactly plays into the statement I made of seeking sets;
"The reality is that the average spread of any sample is going to cover the spectrum, and the larger that sample becomes the more complete and stable that distribution will become."
Nowhere did I ever say all outcomes are inevitable, that's a false argument you dredged up from god knows where, especially given in the posts you've quoted from me people can read every time what I actually said (that being the already quoted segment that the duplication and devaluation of rare items is inevitable in an RNG system).
Even looking at the early statements evoking the law of inevitability we have this;
"The law of inevitability comes into play when you've picked a system where finite percentages exist and the only thing one is looking for is a duplicate result to render something non-unique. "
"That is the law of inevitability. With such a small set of variables as is present in most any game, and the sheer volume of users and times items get crafted, there is no such thing as a "rare" or "unique" crafted item, especially in RNG."
Perhaps you got flabbergasted by the statement "the law of inevitability means any finite set will eventually be filled", but even then that is not a contradiction of the definition of the law of inevitability as perhaps you simply don't understands the use of the term "set" in statistics.
Never do I say every set has to be filled, but I did say any set could be. (Hint, there's a reason "set(s)" comes in both singular and plural.)
And these "laws" don't exist in isolation (semantically they are observations of mathematical principles any ways, not actual laws), They all act as components defining the different aspects of statistics, probability, and mathematics. For you to suggest that using the law of inevitability in tandem with the law of truly large numbers is somehow wrong, is complete nonsense at best. As per the first response to you;
"It actually is stating that a complete set must eventually occur for random events. It does also state that every outcome will occur when addressed in extension to the law of truly large numbers."
The actual problem seems mostly that you didn't understand the terminology, since a "complete set" is not the same as "every/all possible outcome(s)". A set is just, well, a set of variables, one of any number of sets/variables with any variety of results therein. Even your counter examples have used sets in every one since you use sample groups of 100 results. That means each outcome is a complete set of 100 variables. Not every outcome and every set is the same however.
Hence to again why one uses these laws in tandem to explain a logical argument. The fact that one of these sets is inevitable doesn't specify which set is inevitable, just that one is. It's extended by applying the other laws such as the law of truly large numbers however to explain that since a set is inevitable, then certain sets given their positive probability will be seen in multiples as that is an "outrageous thing" in the context of the game's probability.
The fact that the RNG system of games offers a rather finite amount of options and they are all reasonably of the positive probability even if biased, means that getting multiple rares is in effect, inevitable. This is then expanded upon with the law of large number now to address the common principle that given the spread of percent chance each item has been given, we can predict the average distribution of the items generated by RNG to match the probability they have been ascribed.
All that is then coupled with the fact that people favor collecting the best equipment and often scrap/vendor the rest means that over time the distribution of items will favor the top tier of gear that is supposed to be "rare", rendering them no longer such.
That looks far too colloquial to pass for mathematics. The book may be trying to communicate some complex math in a way that the general public can understand by glossing over a lot of important details, but trying to apply it as hard laws to situations can get you into trouble.
For example:
"With a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen."
But that's just not so. Rolling a fair die and getting a 7 is outrageous, but rolling a die often enough doesn't make it happen because it occurs with probability zero. The claim requires assumptions that the outrageous event has positive probability. It also requires that the sample size of events be i.i.d. It's probably possible to weaken the i.i.d. assumption somewhat, but you need some sort of assumptions to get anywhere, as if the first event forces all others to be identical to it, the claim is trivially false.
"The average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
But there are again a bunch of assumptions needed. You definitely need i.i.d. or something like it. If your random variable isn't Lebesgue integrable, what does the expected value even mean? For example, play a game repeatedly where you flip a coin until it comes up heads. If it takes n flips, you win (-2)^n dollars. Even with an infinite sequence of i.i.d. trials, you can't reasonably expect your average winnings to converge to anything in particular.
Say what you will, but unless you can find a way to disprove that an item that ultimately lacks scarcity is not rare, then you're out an argument.
We don't call things "rare" just because there's something produced in greater quantity. We call things rare because they are scarce. If something is subject to waning scarcity, then it can not be rare.
That's why things like Diamonds are artificially regulated in order to maintain scarcity. Because diamonds in real life aren't actually all that rare. Instead, we have to control their flow into the marketplace in order to create a false scarcity.
Game's aren't particularly capable of artificial scarcity because most systems as they have been implemented tend to be subject to a lot inflation over time. It's impossible as a result for an item to actually be rare, as inflation renders the availability of most all goods and resources abundant.
Also you seem fond of using the word "fallacy" even though is has no logical application to the argument. The statements are fallacious and they describe the actual mechanics of probability and the resulting consequences on the status of "rare" items accurately.
Besides which market saturation and lacking item decay only further proves my point right, so you can bring them up if you want, but that's rather counter-intuitive for you to be providing points that disprove your claim.
While I agree that "rare" should mean scarce, in MMORPGs, it's more typical that "rare" means "more powerful than common", even if it's actually less scarce than common. In Elsword, "rare" is probably the most common rarity for gear drops.
I also do NOT agree that minigames is what will attract non-crafters to crafting systems because if minigames is the only thing that draws them then they will just get pissed off
yeh .. why even bother drawing non-crafters to something they don't like and merely tolerate?
exactly. to me the OP title is a non-starter to the entire conversation
I agree with this. Give people who like pvp some pvp, give pve players some pve and give crafting for those who like it.
Try reading the post. I'm not trying to get non-crafters to like crafting. I'm trying to get a good crafting system that doesn't bother non-crafters.
An analogous post of "PVP for non PVP-ers" would discuss how to create a good PVP system for people who like PVP without screwing up the game for pure PVE players who don't want to PVP at all, ever.
That looks far too colloquial to pass for mathematics. The book may be trying to communicate some complex math in a way that the general public can understand by glossing over a lot of important details, but trying to apply it as hard laws to situations can get you into trouble.
As it applies to the book I was pulling those quotes from, the author's intent is to explain the principle of why "miracle" events occur and that such events are more common in their probability than people tend to understand or expect.
I make a fair amount of assumption in my statements because the subject in question is finite sets within a game where the options and possible outcomes are considerably more constrained and we can ascribe a positive probability to all the options.
I tend to shy away from math babble or overly technical explanations in my own posts as there are two points to that.
When the approach of the argument is already requiring a broad explanation of many things, getting overly detailed on specific factors ends up making things even longer than they already tend to be, rendering the ability to get a concise point across rather difficult.
Using large, complex or technical phrases and information can actually negatively impact how receptive another is of the information you are providing them, especially in the case of an argument. It may seem counter-intuitive to give less specific information in the middle of an argument, but when a person responds in an obstinate fashion towards any form of reason the ability to process any volume of data goes down. "Droning" is what the conversation essentially turns into, and nothing then gets through in an explanation to the target.
Yes, the "laws" I used were exceptionally vague in their nature, but the point of them was to deliver a simple detail or principle and have the context and content it was used in relation to provide sufficient context. I wasn't referring to some open ended experiment or delving into anything with particularly abnormal probabilities or otherwise, but rather just bringing up them as they applied to the nature of items in games lacking in scarcity.
As it pertains to your other response, the subject wan't on the nature of why items are named rare, but on their scarcity as it had been brought up by Gdemami. I know "rare" as a name generally is more so a ranking title than anything to do with the actual definition, but as it pertained to the argument we ended up skipping about phrases a couple times and ended up using the phrase "rare" in reference to them more often than any of the other words.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
That looks far too colloquial to pass for mathematics. The book may be trying to communicate some complex math in a way that the general public can understand by glossing over a lot of important details, but trying to apply it as hard laws to situations can get you into trouble.
As it applies to the book I was pulling those quotes from, the author's intent is to explain the principle of why "miracle" events occur and that such events are more common in their probability than people tend to understand or expect.
I make a fair amount of assumption in my statements because the subject in question is finite sets within a game where the options and possible outcomes are considerably more constrained and we can ascribe a positive probability to all the options.
I tend to shy away from math babble or overly technical explanations in my own posts as there are two points to that.
When the approach of the argument is already requiring a broad explanation of many things, getting overly detailed on specific factors ends up making things even longer than they already tend to be, rendering the ability to get a concise point across rather difficult.
Using large, complex or technical phrases and information can actually negatively impact how receptive another is of the information you are providing them, especially in the case of an argument. It may seem counter-intuitive to give less specific information in the middle of an argument, but when a person responds in an obstinate fashion towards any form of reason the ability to process any volume of data goes down. "Droning" is what the conversation essentially turns into, and nothing then gets through in an explanation to the target.
Yes, the "laws" I used were exceptionally vague in their nature, but the point of them was to deliver a simple detail or principle and have the context and content it was used in relation to provide sufficient context. I wasn't referring to some open ended experiment or delving into anything with particularly abnormal probabilities or otherwise, but rather just bringing up them as they applied to the nature of items in games lacking in scarcity.
As it pertains to your other response, the subject wan't on the nature of why items are named rare, but on their scarcity as it had been brought up by Gdemami. I know "rare" as a name generally is more so a ranking title than anything to do with the actual definition, but as it pertained to the argument we ended up skipping about phrases a couple times and ended up using the phrase "rare" in reference to them more often than any of the other words.
Fair points all, but if applicability to games is the measure, why introduce laws of large numbers in the first place? I wasn't the one to raise that topic. It is basically trivial to design probability distributions such that the number of trials in the lifetime of a game isn't nearly enough to get anything near converging to the average. Independence assumptions essential to many theorems are often wildly violated, as many players do something solely because it's what most other players do.
Furthermore, games commonly have events that are genuinely rare--and not always intentionally so. It is common to have end-game gear that is designed to be rare enough that very few players will ever get it. Some portions of game worlds are all but abandoned, and not always because the content has been deprecated by later expansions. Bugs are often rare events, which is why they weren't caught and fixed long ago.
A lot of that is exceptions or need qualifiers themselves.
Like end-game gear. Part of the reason that gear is only obtained by a small subset of users is because the endgame content it's gated behind is content that only a small subset of players enjoy or play. Unintentional rare events are their own thing, and both they and bugs really don't have much of anything to do with the potential scarcity of crafted items in games.
Laws of large numbers were introduced in accounting for number of players times repetition of a particular event (crafting) over time. It was done so since the size of a game's user base (and subsequently how many of them participate in crafting) and the rate at which they produce things through crafting can be a truly massive number especially across the lifespan of a game like an MMO. That all feeds not into a bunch og different probabilities, just the list of items the game has on offer to craft.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I would like to see crafting, or economics more generally, become a major driver of player interaction in worlds based around conflict.
and I would like to see less player interaction .. and more focus on new combat & environmental mechanics. I guess people have different preferences.
well I am not for 'new combat' because I think games have 'combat' aspect of real life and fiction fully covered and over-fucked so it would be nice to see gaming expand out of that box a bit.
That said, I agree on social. If crafting was a way to be social I would not play said game 'go find your own fucking friends' as I would like to say I am busy making something
Expanding out of the box just for the sake of it .. is not good entertainment.
Making virtual stuff is not fun for me. Fishing is not fun for me. Racing is not fun for me. I avoid unfun things in games.
Combat, OTOH, is very fun if there is polished and interesting mechanics. I bet there are many gamers who are like me. Otherwise, rebottling of old ideas like DOOM would not be so successful.
Comments
I agree with this. Give people who like pvp some pvp, give pve players some pve and give crafting for those who like it.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Part of this is because you already have in mind your idea of "perfect crafting" and as you have mentioned quite a few times, WURM seems to encapsulate what you like.
Take someone who is not interested with current crafting systems but then give them the type of crafting goals that I have already listed (which you can't seem to wrap your mind around) and they very well might become crafters.
Then again, in pure Sean style "if you don't like x then you can never like y, end story".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It's not black or white no matter what Narius and Sean want us to believe.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
why cant we have different games for different tastes?
or for large virtual world games why does every player have to play every part of the game? they dont
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Also a huge Merlot fan.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
There are many things. Sorry I didn't write out all the combinations.
As to your quip. A pvp player wants pvp. You add pvp for the pvp player not for the one who hates pvp.
As to the logical absurdity: Player 1 wants to be able to attack any player at anytime. Player 2 never wants to be attacked by other players. They normally can't exist side by side. Allow playing 1 to attack player 2 violates player 2 while preventing that attack violates Player 1. So creating an absurd point based on that FAILS.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
So some people hate open world pvp (me) and like pvp in a BG. So they play games with battleground pvp & no open pvp.
Some people say "battleground pvp sucks the only pvp is open world pvp" and they play games with open pvp and no battle ground.
If any group cannot find a game they like, that means there are not enough customers in a particular group for devs to take notice.
Seems pretty black & white, and obvious to me. So what is the confusion?
After playing a lot of various games, esp. EVE, I've noticed that there is usually a huge surplus of redundant production capacity. It's usually a buyer's market even in competitive or desireable goods. Rarity mechanics usually play a problematic feature as well, with 90% of items being worthless. In EVE, the rate of item destruction is trivial compared to the potential rate of item creation. This should create a situation of competition, but it doesn't.
What I'd really like to see is a requirement for crafting players to become very specialized, but not permanently wedded to someething they were forced to choose on day one. Not so much as in the acquisition of permanent skills, but in risked investments. I'd like to see a player setup a factory specifically designed to turn out a specific item with maximum efficiency. There could be thousands of players operating many hundreds of different factories along these lines, all providing a very wide range of specialized goods, preferably all with some sort of specialized utility.
What's interesting here is competition. When you're a specialist, you start to know who your competitors are. They then become targets for conflict with the goal of increasing their costs of doing business, gaining market advantage over them, or completely forcing them out and into a new line of work where they will then find conflict with a new group of players. My goal then is to sabotage or destroy the other player's factory, or just force them into more peripheral markets. EVE markets are not well distributed because there's no disincentive for them to heavily centralized as well as anonymous.
To moderate the inclination towards shooting everything that moves, conflicts have to be expensive for all sides. There has to be some incentive at the end to recover something, but only by winning and only by being invested in that specialized market.
EVE is plain old not good at this. It came close during the Technetium wars, but CCP interceded to make sure nothing interesting could happen. Someday I hope there will be a real market pvp game.
That said, I agree on social. If crafting was a way to be social I would not play said game 'go find your own fucking friends' as I would like to say I am busy making something
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But crafting so commonly is integrated with getting gear that people need for combat that the way crafting is done affects people who want to participate in combat but don't like crafting. The goal is for a game to have a good crafting system that people who like crafting can participate in and enjoy, without breaking the game for people who dislike crafting and don't want to bother.
For example:
"With a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to happen."
But that's just not so. Rolling a fair die and getting a 7 is outrageous, but rolling a die often enough doesn't make it happen because it occurs with probability zero. The claim requires assumptions that the outrageous event has positive probability. It also requires that the sample size of events be i.i.d. It's probably possible to weaken the i.i.d. assumption somewhat, but you need some sort of assumptions to get anywhere, as if the first event forces all others to be identical to it, the claim is trivially false.
"The average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
But there are again a bunch of assumptions needed. You definitely need i.i.d. or something like it. If your random variable isn't Lebesgue integrable, what does the expected value even mean? For example, play a game repeatedly where you flip a coin until it comes up heads. If it takes n flips, you win (-2)^n dollars. Even with an infinite sequence of i.i.d. trials, you can't reasonably expect your average winnings to converge to anything in particular.
An analogous post of "PVP for non PVP-ers" would discuss how to create a good PVP system for people who like PVP without screwing up the game for pure PVE players who don't want to PVP at all, ever.
I make a fair amount of assumption in my statements because the subject in question is finite sets within a game where the options and possible outcomes are considerably more constrained and we can ascribe a positive probability to all the options.
I tend to shy away from math babble or overly technical explanations in my own posts as there are two points to that.
- When the approach of the argument is already requiring a broad explanation of many things, getting overly detailed on specific factors ends up making things even longer than they already tend to be, rendering the ability to get a concise point across rather difficult.
- Using large, complex or technical phrases and information can actually negatively impact how receptive another is of the information you are providing them, especially in the case of an argument. It may seem counter-intuitive to give less specific information in the middle of an argument, but when a person responds in an obstinate fashion towards any form of reason the ability to process any volume of data goes down. "Droning" is what the conversation essentially turns into, and nothing then gets through in an explanation to the target.
Yes, the "laws" I used were exceptionally vague in their nature, but the point of them was to deliver a simple detail or principle and have the context and content it was used in relation to provide sufficient context. I wasn't referring to some open ended experiment or delving into anything with particularly abnormal probabilities or otherwise, but rather just bringing up them as they applied to the nature of items in games lacking in scarcity.As it pertains to your other response, the subject wan't on the nature of why items are named rare, but on their scarcity as it had been brought up by Gdemami. I know "rare" as a name generally is more so a ranking title than anything to do with the actual definition, but as it pertained to the argument we ended up skipping about phrases a couple times and ended up using the phrase "rare" in reference to them more often than any of the other words.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Furthermore, games commonly have events that are genuinely rare--and not always intentionally so. It is common to have end-game gear that is designed to be rare enough that very few players will ever get it. Some portions of game worlds are all but abandoned, and not always because the content has been deprecated by later expansions. Bugs are often rare events, which is why they weren't caught and fixed long ago.
Like end-game gear. Part of the reason that gear is only obtained by a small subset of users is because the endgame content it's gated behind is content that only a small subset of players enjoy or play. Unintentional rare events are their own thing, and both they and bugs really don't have much of anything to do with the potential scarcity of crafted items in games.
Laws of large numbers were introduced in accounting for number of players times repetition of a particular event (crafting) over time. It was done so since the size of a game's user base (and subsequently how many of them participate in crafting) and the rate at which they produce things through crafting can be a truly massive number especially across the lifespan of a game like an MMO. That all feeds not into a bunch og different probabilities, just the list of items the game has on offer to craft.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Making virtual stuff is not fun for me. Fishing is not fun for me. Racing is not fun for me. I avoid unfun things in games.
Combat, OTOH, is very fun if there is polished and interesting mechanics. I bet there are many gamers who are like me. Otherwise, rebottling of old ideas like DOOM would not be so successful.