While I might grant you that our definitions of wave and particle are incorrect, that still does not help answer the idea of infinitely many contradictory explanations of the quantum word that, by definition, are all correct.
Also, Logic, like Science, is a human construct and is therefor not absolute and perfect. To think otherwise would be illogical. An imperfect being cannot produce a perfect idea or system.
As a Philosophy Professor once told me "Logic does not apply to matters of the heart, don't believe me, just look at my marriage."
I hate to say this because I know emotional people will complain but just because a person is a philosiphy professor does not gaurantee any degree of ability in logic or philosophy beyond memorizing things that are in the books he had to read (which he may have forgotten) ....
Lets look at a hypothetical situation for a second. In this hypothetical situation, a person does not have freewill. They have a single path througout their life dictated by everything that has happened to them before and their genetic make up and input from their 5 senses. (most of which can be divided in to smaller parts, for example rods/cones for eyes, 10 distinct taste receptors etc) Their consious mind process a limited amount of information, and their unconsious mind processes much more at a time and communicates with the consious mind through emotions.
Now in a computer programming school they will tell you that the average person can only consiously consider 7 things at a time. Now IF a person was as I said in this hypothetical situation, to comprehend that fully you would have to be able to consiously consider all your past experiences at once, all data from all your senses, and then derive some obscenely complicated physics formula that would describe how a person would act under any circumstance. Needless to say that exceeds the limit of being able to consider 7 things at a time. So what, in this purely hypothetical situation, would it feel like to be a human being?
Probably like you had Free Will...
IE such statements as that professor made have no basis in reality, just because you do not yet understand something does not mean it makes no sense. And imagine how rediculous these statements sound to people that do understand that subject. Logic cannot be wrong by its very nature. Logic does not allow people to claim something that could ever possibly be wrong.
Give me any quantum physical definition or occurence and I will explain to you why it doesn't contradict logic. I do it once and you simply say there are others you cannot do that with... Sounds like a copout to me.
@ Ramon In UO you can attack anyone anywhere (well except for brand new newbies now)... when you die you lose all your stuff.. If UO is not PVP based then no game is...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Premise 1: The game aspect of any video game (ie not the social aspect) is fun because they are looking forward to a feeling of self worth they will have by progressing in the game. In say Unreal 2 you go through the game thinking "Im going to save teh universe!!" and maybe wonder what the characters will say when you do a particularly amazing thing. In an rpg you might think "Im going to be uber when I save up and buy that next weapon" or "Im going to be uber from all this praticing on these rats when i get to lvl 100" I would propose that when this happens you are unconsiously thinking "and then everyone will love me" but this is not nessecary to this argument.
Fun is a very different prospect for each individual that plays. Myself, for example, my game of choice is/was EverQuest. My first, main and really only character was one that I played for 4 years, over 300 days of play time accured. It is a cleric. For me, my fun and enjoyment comes from people recognizing that I am one of the best clerics ever to play. I learned my class, I played my class well, and I was willing to try different things to do that. I did things no other cleric ever attempted and some of the things I came up with were passed around by other clerics as the thing to do in a given situation.
MY main enjoyment comes from solving the delima and seeing the end of an encounter. My fun comes from making sure I kept everyone else around me alive, or at least, enough people to win the encounter. When we're all standing around, with a pile of MOB corpses at our feet, and scratching our butts wondering how we managed to live, and I'm there with a little smile saying "oh yeah, that was me..."
Premise 2: Upon reaching the highest point a player can in a game, the feeling of self worth dissapears. You reach the end, you realize the npc characters are nothing more than a bit of program code, you tell your friend whatever you accomplished and they say "so what my friend Ub3r l337 did that even better" Again I propose that this feeling is gone because you realize no real love or respect will come of it. Only one person can be the best, and only the best is respected for things like this. But again its not crucial to the argument.
There is no end game. There is no "done". I reached the highest (current) level in EQ, and I have alot/most of the alt skills. But there is always more to do. Always more skills to get. Always a next task or accomplishment. Always one more nifty item you can get. Always one more zone you can work towards getting into. And when you think you got to the end, well, they add more. And that is just for ONE character out of eight you can have per account, out of 15 different classes you can be.
Premise 3: The highest point is reached when the player sees that additional effort will not progress him towards recieving more feeling of self worth. In single player games this is when the game is beat because there is nothing worthy about doing that which you have already done. Single player games are given replayability by allowing for multiple drastically different ways of playing the game succesfully.
MMORPGs are given replayability by allowing multiple paths taken to reach the high end game. EQ in particular accomplishes this by allowing 15 (soon to be 16) different classes you can play. By allowing different quests and tasks you can do. By taking different exp paths. One can choose to take the "fast track" like lemmings and exp from 1 to 65 in the same zones everyone else does, or one can choose a different path, see different content, do different quests.
Premise 4: However, different ways of playing a game which are still very similar do not acheive this goal. For example if the sole difference in an rpg between a melee character and say a gun character is the picture of the weapon and maybe a 2 second animation than it is not different enough to make the game fun to play again. In MMORPG's this means that the end point mentioned in Premise 3 can be reached before the game is anywhere near completed. For example in AO where the only thing in the game that changes at all between level 2 and 200 are numbers. Bottom line, trite tricks are not succesful in stretching a small amount of real content into a much larger amount of content for the purpose of making the game fun longer.
If this is the case, then it is the game that is lacking, not the perception of the player. There is a VASTLY different game between a cleric and a shadow knight. And a vastly different game between a level 2 cleric and a level 20 cleric and a level 30 cleric and a level 50 cleric and a level 55 cleric and a level 65 cleric. It's not just trite tricks. It's knowing your class and learning to play your class well.
Premise 5: Players consume or advance through static precreated game content at an average rate of more than 10 times that which it takes to create it. This means that in order to sustain the fun level of a mmorpg just based on single player type static content you would need more than 10x the man hours than it took to make the game to begin with. I do not believe this is cost effective, and obviously neither do mmorpg developers as is evidence by their attempted use of cheap tricks to extend game content.
While your estimation of time to create content may be true (seems low in my opinion, writing code is very time consuming), when you have enough people creating content, the average player simply can not keep up. Again, in EQ, if someone were to start playing today, it would take them at LEAST 6 months to a year to work through all the content there is for whatever class they pick AT THIS MOMENT. And in that 6 months to a year, there will be more content added. To work through all the available conent for every class there is would be a monumental task that no one person could hope to accomplish with out playing multiple accounts at a time, for 16 hours a day. And even then, it would take months, perhaps years.
Premise 6: Following from all before, the only way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun is to have the player encounter setbacks or slow the player down. However to do this at any time when the player did not expect or have control over it is what psychologists call random punishment, and is about as far away from fun as you can get. To give the setback when the player DOES expect it is acceptable but usually just means that the player will avoid doing whatever it is the player will be setback for. The only time when a player will do something which might set him back is when the possible gains are worth the risk. This is gambling.
In EQ, these are called time sinks. These time sinks come in a few varieties and each and every one of them are totally AVOIDABLE. Tradeskills are the biggest time sink, in that the player must "farm" the parts to advance in the skill, and that takes time. Or one could pay lower level players to farm the parts, but then the player must farm the cash to pay them. Either way, tradeskills eat up alot of time.
Another time sink is keys/flags for zones. Again, one can simply not do them and just avoid that content. Or one coule do it like I did, and just show up for raids/events that your friends are doing, and take the flags/keys as they come. In other words, one can obsess with getting to the "Plane of Time" asap and be upset that it takes too long, or one can simply accept that they will never get there and suddenly find themself there by accident, simply by showing up.
Premise 7: The only entity to date in video games unpredictable enough so that the player will not just assume he can beat it (and therefore dieing to it would be random punsihment) or that he has no chance against it (so he will just avoid it), and can retain this unpredictability through a near infinite amount of interactions, is another player. Also the nature of the pvp can not be to limit the players choice of action to the point where PVP becomes predictable.
In a perfect world, PvP may be stimulating and exciting. But in the real world, people who prefer PvP tend to be the kind of people who like to grief other players. They wait until the other player in engaged or in a dangerous situation, and attack from concealment, ambush with superior numbers or lure more NPCs to the area to overwhelm their victem. Very rarely to they engage in PvP with honor, equal numbers or in any situation where they may lose. Simply put, most people who scream that they want PvP are cowards who are REALLY saying they want the opportunity to take, through gile, theft, cheating or force, what other players worked to get by playing the game.
Premise 8: If people's perception of a gamble is that the risk is too great for the reward, then they will simply avoid the gamble. People's perception's will quickly move close to reality, but they will probably always overestimate their chances of winning somewhat. (The percieved chance of winning * the expected or average gain must be greater than the percieved chance of losing * the expected or average loss)
This may be true for the average player, but for me and my wife, is was not. We OFTEN went to places, with just the 2 of us, that most people said we needed a full group to survive. We did more as a duo (65 Shadow Knight and 65 Cleric) then most people ever did at all. Part of this was the fact that since she was a 65 Shadow Knight, there was no risk of losing our equipment since she could summon our corpses if we died, and since I was a 65 cleric, there was no risk of lost experience if we failed, I could just ressurect our corpses and return most or even all of the lost expierience.
In other words, for us, there was no risk that was too great to try it, just for the fun of it. We often failed horribly, laughed about it and went on with our fun.
Premise 9: To minimize the sting of the setback to the player, the player should immediately be placed back on the normal track to gaining status in the game rather than suffer death specific time delays. If long death specific time delays are given, the association between them and the expected setback for losing becomes loose.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Sure, if we failed and died, we had 10-20 minutes of corpse recovery to do, but that's just part of the game. Not every second spent in game should be spent gaining greater status/level/whatever. Sometimes it's ok to just have fun.
Conclusion: The only way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun in an MMORPG is to have a PVP Based MMORPG where players take somewhat fair gambles by choice on their battles between each other.
Again, you speak of fair gambles, by choice. This never happens. It didn't happen in the 3 years I played Ultima Online. It doesn't happen in EQ. The only time I was ever challenged in EQ to a "fair" duel was when my level 65 cleric was challenged to a duel by a level 65 monk who had top end gear. Come on, that's like putting Bruce Lee up against Doctor Freud. They were both the top of their class, considered the best, but in a fight, one was a fighter, the other not. What would a duel of that nature prove?
The simple fact remains, fair fights in PvP almost never happen. PvP in general almost never happens by choice. At least, not the victims choice. It happens at the time chosen by the coward who makes himself feel better about his pathetic life by "pwning" or "raping" some unsuspecting "noob".
Unfortunately UO is NOT PvP based. It was a open-ended mmorpg with PvP elements. And it was all good until some pimp-faced brats with anger problems decided to start camping entrances to f-over anyone who tried getting into dungeons. Then the biggest nerf in all online gaming history came when they split the world in two........
Sad so very sad....Had to live out life in felucca as a hemit. People avoided it like the plague. Oh well.
Actually, before we quit UO to play EQ, my wife and I NEVER went to Trammel. We LOVED the fact that we could play in Felucca and never had to conest with anyone for whatever area we wanted to hunt. We also ran in to so few PKers that it was simply not an issue. When we did run into a PK, often we could just run/recall away. Sometimes we could even go on the offensive and chase the PKs away. Most PKs were such cowards that if you put up any kind of fight, they paniced and ran away.
Agreed, some people who have PhD's know little to nothing of what they are supposed to be an expert on. But with that same token, you, my friend, come into this thread with even less credentials and claim to profess to know all there is to know about logic (including how it, by nature, cannot be wrong). How do we, as the obviously non-logic minded public, know that you are not just feeding us a steaming load of bull? Cause, as you have implied numerous time, none of us in this tread seem to know ANYTHING about logic. Please do not take offence by the fact that I scoff your knowledge and understanding of logic, as you did my professor. If you have some truly impressive credentials, please let me know, so that I can stop this foolhardy argument.
I would also like to know why you went on some "free will" spree on a quote that was more of an afterthought, instead of tackling the real issue of the fact that Philosophy is simply a human construct that cannot be completely correct. Nothing created by humans can be any more perfect that the humans that created it. And also, saying that logic cannot be wrong because of its ideals and premiss... thats like defining a word with itself. Something cannot be undisputably correct and still be considered to have any real meaning outside of faith. It is only somethings ability to be argued and proven wrong that gives it meaning. Your undying faith in logic is admirable, but it seems to be nothing more then faith, with no real background in reality. However, real logic is disputable, and has been proven to work many times over... but it IS DISPUTABLE. It is not correct simply because its logic and it has to be.
Last, I never said that the wave/particle duality example was one of the explanations of Quantum Physics... as it is not, it is simply an explanation of one of the many problems that arises when you look at the realm of the extremely small. I would be glad to give you an example of two explanations that work AND contradict eachother, however to do so with complete accuracy I would need to review the theories as I am not 100% sure of their wording. My text books, articles on the subject (not written by me), and lab notes on the subject are at work, and it being a Sunday, I am not at work. So I will defer that part of the conversation till I can research and present a 100% accurate, non-skewed, version of the theories that are currently in position. Call that a copout if you will, but I, for one, would like to try to offer a complete non-bias example.
@ Ramon In UO you can attack anyone anywhere (well except for brand new newbies now)... when you die you lose all your stuff.. If UO is not PVP based then no game is...
I said based. UO is not based on PvP. That's as far from the truth as saying EA created UO. Origins when making UO set out to create a game where players could create characters that had endless possibilities and that included the threat of being attack by real players (That was the whole concept around the Ultima series: virtue and moral). Not a game where PvP combat could flourish with a sprinkle of cooking here and tailoring there.
Come now don't be so blinded by your own narcissistic attitude that you don't realize the meaning of what a game being based off a concept is.
And for the record here are 2 games I know of that are based off of a PvP concept:
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Both in which are sorely lacking in the PvE department.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
As Ramonski7 pointed out, UO is not a PvP based game. It is a game with a PvP element. An element that one can completely avoid by staying in Trammel. If you compare the size of the Trammel populationl to that of Felucca, you will see what people preffer.
Neocron has almost no players. Honestly, how many people actually play that game? A few hundred? A thousand at most? There are more people playing on the Trammel side of UO on any server right now than there are playing Neocron.
I played Neocron for the longest time and never got bored of it before they altered the pvp to make the gambles in it terribly worthless.
Finally we get to the gist of the whole argument. You played Neocron. You never got bored of it... Your whole argument and your chain of logic is nothing more than a description of a game that you would find fun. So yes, it is logical to you. It is however absurd to someone who does not like PvP and does not share your views.
I realize theres more carebears out there then pvpers and thats cool....its sad but its ok. What I think the pvpers are tryin to say is dont get a pvp game and then whine like a lil bitch when u get wrecked by a pker. If ur a carebear play carebear games. Dont getta game where ur gonna get killed and then you call on for help to the gm's over and over again. Its just makes a pker even more pissed. Especially when the game gets changed for the carebears.
Originally posted by TMcC I realize theres more carebears out there then pvpers and thats cool....its sad but its ok. What I think the pvpers are tryin to say is dont get a pvp game and then whine like a lil bitch when u get wrecked by a pker. If ur a carebear play carebear games. Dont getta game where ur gonna get killed and then you call on for help to the gm's over and over again. Its just makes a pker even more pissed. Especially when the game gets changed for the carebears.
That is totaly out of context with this whole topic. This whole topic is about why MMORPG must be PvP based to be successful. It is however not the case as is evident by the ammount of people who play PvP based games like EVE and games with a "carebear" option like UO.
By the way, Origin, the creator of UO, was a subsidiary of EA.
Originally posted by TMcC I realize theres more carebears out there then pvpers and thats cool....its sad but its ok. What I think the pvpers are tryin to say is dont get a pvp game and then whine like a lil bitch when u get wrecked by a pker. If ur a carebear play carebear games. Dont getta game where ur gonna get killed and then you call on for help to the gm's over and over again. Its just makes a pker even more pissed. Especially when the game gets changed for the carebears.
That's what you're saying. It's a fair perspective.
Hey Kriminal99 have you ever played Meridian59? If not I highly recommend it, best PvP system out of any PvP game(even UO). Anyone who truely loves PvP I strongly suggest you try it its prolly the last true PvP game that hasn't been tainted by Carebears.
To the poster above, acting like that on a message board isn't going to stop the bullies at school from beating you up, you may actually want to try to fight them back instead.
Anyhow, as it's been mentioned somewhat through this thread, Everquest alone disproves your entire theory. I'm fairly certain that EQ has the largest subscription base of people that have stuck with 1 MMORPG for more then 2 years. The fact is people can get just as much enjoyment fighting 'epic' encounters for items to increase the 'value' of thier character. The PvE group perfers to just compare thier gear while the PvP group would rather compare skills (although this could easily be argued as pvp is more about ganking then an actual straight forward 1v1 test of skills).
What it comes down to is most people that feel the same as the original poster like to tell those who would perfer not to PvP that in order for them to have fun, they're going to have to play the game your way which just doesn't work. Just know that there are a LOT of people that do not consider being 'ganked' when all the wanted to go do is get together to go kill some uber mob as being fun.
Me personally, I perfer the EQ style game with the main focus on PvE with just a side of PvP involved, such as in DAoC although that may have been a bit too focused on PvP for my liking.
I realize theres more carebears out there then pvpers and thats cool....its sad but its ok. What I think the pvpers are tryin to say is dont get a pvp game and then whine like a lil bitch when u get wrecked by a pker. If ur a carebear play carebear games. Dont getta game where ur gonna get killed and then you call on for help to the gm's over and over again. Its just makes a pker even more pissed. Especially when the game gets changed for the carebears.
Funny thing is that in most cases it's the pvper that buys the game that is based around PvE that starts to demand things be made differently for them. How often do you see someone demand for less PvP once the games basic design involving that issue is made public. Take WoW for example, once it was stated that there was going to be limited pvp comparitive to that found in DAoC, every few posts on the official WoW forum was about how there needs to be more PvP in the game. I can't recall EVER seeing a single post saying they should have no PvP involved. The same thing also happened in EQ, originally there was no plan for a PvP server but before the start of beta 4, after getting a fair number of requests, they opened up a full pvp server. Fact is hardcore pvper's are the ones who taint games, not the carebears.
to premis 1 Fun is a very different prospect for each individual that plays. Myself, for example, my game of choice is/was EverQuest. My first, main and really only character was one that I played for 4 years, over 300 days of play time accured. It is a cleric. For me, my fun and enjoyment comes from people recognizing that I am one of the best clerics ever to play. I learned my class, I played my class well, and I was willing to try different things to do that. I did things no other cleric ever attempted and some of the things I came up with were passed around by other clerics as the thing to do in a given situation. MY main enjoyment comes from solving the delima and seeing the end of an encounter. My fun comes from making sure I kept everyone else around me alive, or at least, enough people to win the encounter. When we're all standing around, with a pile of MOB corpses at our feet, and scratching our butts wondering how we managed to live, and I'm there with a little smile saying "oh yeah, that was me..."
Premise 2: Upon reaching the highest point a player can in a game, the feeling of self worth dissapears. You reach the end, you realize the npc characters are nothing more than a bit of program code, you tell your friend whatever you accomplished and they say "so what my friend Ub3r l337 did that even better" Again I propose that this feeling is gone because you realize no real love or respect will come of it. Only one person can be the best, and only the best is respected for things like this. But again its not crucial to the argument. There is no end game. There is no "done". I reached the highest (current) level in EQ, and I have alot/most of the alt skills. But there is always more to do. Always more skills to get. Always a next task or accomplishment. Always one more nifty item you can get. Always one more zone you can work towards getting into. And when you think you got to the end, well, they add more. And that is just for ONE character out of eight you can have per account, out of 15 different classes you can be. Premise 3: The highest point is reached when the player sees that additional effort will not progress him towards recieving more feeling of self worth. In single player games this is when the game is beat because there is nothing worthy about doing that which you have already done. Single player games are given replayability by allowing for multiple drastically different ways of playing the game succesfully. MMORPGs are given replayability by allowing multiple paths taken to reach the high end game. EQ in particular accomplishes this by allowing 15 (soon to be 16) different classes you can play. By allowing different quests and tasks you can do. By taking different exp paths. One can choose to take the "fast track" like lemmings and exp from 1 to 65 in the same zones everyone else does, or one can choose a different path, see different content, do different quests.
Premise 4: However, different ways of playing a game which are still very similar do not acheive this goal. For example if the sole difference in an rpg between a melee character and say a gun character is the picture of the weapon and maybe a 2 second animation than it is not different enough to make the game fun to play again. In MMORPG's this means that the end point mentioned in Premise 3 can be reached before the game is anywhere near completed. For example in AO where the only thing in the game that changes at all between level 2 and 200 are numbers. Bottom line, trite tricks are not succesful in stretching a small amount of real content into a much larger amount of content for the purpose of making the game fun longer. If this is the case, then it is the game that is lacking, not the perception of the player. There is a VASTLY different game between a cleric and a shadow knight. And a vastly different game between a level 2 cleric and a level 20 cleric and a level 30 cleric and a level 50 cleric and a level 55 cleric and a level 65 cleric. It's not just trite tricks. It's knowing your class and learning to play your class well.
Premise 5: Players consume or advance through static precreated game content at an average rate of more than 10 times that which it takes to create it. This means that in order to sustain the fun level of a mmorpg just based on single player type static content you would need more than 10x the man hours than it took to make the game to begin with. I do not believe this is cost effective, and obviously neither do mmorpg developers as is evidence by their attempted use of cheap tricks to extend game content. While your estimation of time to create content may be true (seems low in my opinion, writing code is very time consuming), when you have enough people creating content, the average player simply can not keep up. Again, in EQ, if someone were to start playing today, it would take them at LEAST 6 months to a year to work through all the content there is for whatever class they pick AT THIS MOMENT. And in that 6 months to a year, there will be more content added. To work through all the available conent for every class there is would be a monumental task that no one person could hope to accomplish with out playing multiple accounts at a time, for 16 hours a day. And even then, it would take months, perhaps years.
Premise 6: Following from all before, the only way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun is to have the player encounter setbacks or slow the player down. However to do this at any time when the player did not expect or have control over it is what psychologists call random punishment, and is about as far away from fun as you can get. To give the setback when the player DOES expect it is acceptable but usually just means that the player will avoid doing whatever it is the player will be setback for. The only time when a player will do something which might set him back is when the possible gains are worth the risk. This is gambling. In EQ, these are called time sinks. These time sinks come in a few varieties and each and every one of them are totally AVOIDABLE. Tradeskills are the biggest time sink, in that the player must "farm" the parts to advance in the skill, and that takes time. Or one could pay lower level players to farm the parts, but then the player must farm the cash to pay them. Either way, tradeskills eat up alot of time. Another time sink is keys/flags for zones. Again, one can simply not do them and just avoid that content. Or one coule do it like I did, and just show up for raids/events that your friends are doing, and take the flags/keys as they come. In other words, one can obsess with getting to the "Plane of Time" asap and be upset that it takes too long, or one can simply accept that they will never get there and suddenly find themself there by accident, simply by showing up.
Premise 7: The only entity to date in video games unpredictable enough so that the player will not just assume he can beat it (and therefore dieing to it would be random punsihment) or that he has no chance against it (so he will just avoid it), and can retain this unpredictability through a near infinite amount of interactions, is another player. Also the nature of the pvp can not be to limit the players choice of action to the point where PVP becomes predictable. In a perfect world, PvP may be stimulating and exciting. But in the real world, people who prefer PvP tend to be the kind of people who like to grief other players. They wait until the other player in engaged or in a dangerous situation, and attack from concealment, ambush with superior numbers or lure more NPCs to the area to overwhelm their victem. Very rarely to they engage in PvP with honor, equal numbers or in any situation where they may lose. Simply put, most people who scream that they want PvP are cowards who are REALLY saying they want the opportunity to take, through gile, theft, cheating or force, what other players worked to get by playing the game.
Premise 8: If people's perception of a gamble is that the risk is too great for the reward, then they will simply avoid the gamble. People's perception's will quickly move close to reality, but they will probably always overestimate their chances of winning somewhat. (The percieved chance of winning * the expected or average gain must be greater than the percieved chance of losing * the expected or average loss) This may be true for the average player, but for me and my wife, is was not. We OFTEN went to places, with just the 2 of us, that most people said we needed a full group to survive. We did more as a duo (65 Shadow Knight and 65 Cleric) then most people ever did at all. Part of this was the fact that since she was a 65 Shadow Knight, there was no risk of losing our equipment since she could summon our corpses if we died, and since I was a 65 cleric, there was no risk of lost experience if we failed, I could just ressurect our corpses and return most or even all of the lost expierience. In other words, for us, there was no risk that was too great to try it, just for the fun of it. We often failed horribly, laughed about it and went on with our fun.
Premise 9: To minimize the sting of the setback to the player, the player should immediately be placed back on the normal track to gaining status in the game rather than suffer death specific time delays. If long death specific time delays are given, the association between them and the expected setback for losing becomes loose. I don't understand what you mean by this. Sure, if we failed and died, we had 10-20 minutes of corpse recovery to do, but that's just part of the game. Not every second spent in game should be spent gaining greater status/level/whatever. Sometimes it's ok to just have fun.
Conclusion: The only way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun in an MMORPG is to have a PVP Based MMORPG where players take somewhat fair gambles by choice on their battles between each other. Again, you speak of fair gambles, by choice. This never happens. It didn't happen in the 3 years I played Ultima Online. It doesn't happen in EQ. The only time I was ever challenged in EQ to a "fair" duel was when my level 65 cleric was challenged to a duel by a level 65 monk who had top end gear. Come on, that's like putting Bruce Lee up against Doctor Freud. They were both the top of their class, considered the best, but in a fight, one was a fighter, the other not. What would a duel of that nature prove? The simple fact remains, fair fights in PvP almost never happen. PvP in general almost never happens by choice. At least, not the victims choice. It happens at the time chosen by the coward who makes himself feel better about his pathetic life by "pwning" or "raping" some unsuspecting "noob".
Premise 1 You do realize your story goes perfectly along with premise 1 don't you? You are a cleric, people respect you for your skill, that makes you happy. This is almost exactly what premise 1 says... except it does not say that it is nessecary to be working toward the real world respect that you got, it can be imagined. This is all premise 1 is trying to say... If I need to reword it again I guess I will...
Premise 2 and Premise 3 both are directed towards single player games and you are arguing as if they were directed towards MMORPGS.
Premise 4 Simply put all this premise says is that if a developer tries to stretch the game content it does not extend the length of time the player can have fun playing the game. You failed to even address this claim...
Premise 5 Ok... First... Accumulated content is irrelevant. Second I made no claim about the time to program game content... (and I know how to program) The claim here is that a player can use up developed content at a rate of more than 10x that in which it is created for the average developer. Again you do not even dispute the premise....
HOWEVER you claim that there is enough content to keep someone occupied for a really long time. This is nowhere near the perpetual fun this argument is dealing with, but maybe noone cares if a game is really fun forever, maybe a couple years would be good enough. However, I know plenty of people who became bored with everquest. No they probably did not play every class. For that matter have you tried every class? If not why not? Probably because the classes and levels even really are repetitive. There may even be two classes that really are drastically different. I would SERIOUSLY doubt that all however many classes you said there were different enough to warrant playing seperately. To be honest, the fact that anyone has gotten bored of everquest tells me that the content is somewhat repetitive.
Premise 6 Again are you attempting to address my premise here or not? If your saying that EQ uses something other than pvp succesfully, you just contradicted yourself because you said they are avoidable and the premises recognizes this possibility but states that then players will simply avoid them so it does not slow the consumption of content. If you are claiming that players do things which involve time sinks because they want the rewards, well then at least you would have thought of something I didn't put in my argument... However thats just freaking torture and I think its obvious that makes a game unfun...
Premise 7 Lalala... wake me up when you adress one of my premises... This one says that a person is the only person with whom the outcome of battle will remain unpredictable if you want to take a second go at it...
Premise 8 *yawn* so you are saying that there was no risk involved and a slight chance of good rewards... how does this contradict the premise...
Premise 9 Wait times are not fun. Talking to your wife might be fun. Thats nice. I am looking at the gaming aspect of games. IE if a person had noone to talk to. Why? because Social interaction is not the limiting factor in how fun a game can be. Maybe if I load up the worst mmo to ever exist while talking to my girlfriend on the phone I can have a good old time. That doesn't make the game good.
ConClusion (oh thank god)
Fair gambles by choice: Sure they can. Your expierence in MMOS seems to be limited to everquest. This is not a good PVP game. PVP requires a player to be able to use many different strategies and tactics. For example an fps rpg hybrid like neocron. Of course pVP can happen that way. Suppose there is a right for a certain level of players. If you step in there, then you expect to fight players of that level.
Pretty much nothing you said even addresses my argument...
Ok to the first part. That is simple. A person with a PHD is supposed to have more knowledge to support them to their efforts to find the truth. Everything I am saying is simply just plain common sense if you choose to put 2 and 2 together. I dont even think I said that you all do not have logical ability. Regardless the truth is that you are forsaking it to say whatever feels like a good thing to say to you. Example: Logic does not apply to matters of the heart. What the heck does that even mean? It means nothing. It makes no sense. Its a feel good statement. That a professor in philosiphy would say that is very saddening. And btw that is stepping outside the bounds of his doctorate anyways because that is psychology, which I may very well have studied more of than him. If you want to claim it is not because he said logic, well if that was true then the field of psychology could not exist could it? Yet it does and has accomplished much.
I went off on the tangent about free will for this reason. Most people who go on making rediculously meaningless statements like logic does apply to fun and stuff like that usually know damn well that they have no clue what they are talking about, but justify continued arguing with remote ideas that they may not even be 100% aware of. In this case it is almost certainly that the person feels that they have free will so therefore nothing could figure out what I might do so logic must not be able to be used to figure out what I might do. Since the people here are too immature to summon meaningful arguments before posting I am left no choice but to guess as to what could possibly be goign through their heads. I was simply pointing out that this is not nessecarily the case, in case anyone's whole opinion was based on this.
Until I see you say something that contradicts logic itself then I will not believe you. But I am telling you it is a fool's errand... your time would better be spent getting a clearer understanding of what logic is and what it is not.
@ RAMONSKI and HEARTLESS
If UO is not pvp based then no game is pvp based end of story
Anyways Neocron was MUCH more populated than it is now back when pvp included decent gambles between players. Heartless what are you on about? Suddenly because you see one experience where I learned about MMORPGS and used simple logic to deduce what made the game fun and what did not you think my argument is less strong without even reading it. If you can't dispute one of my premises in the argument than you have nothing legitimate to say. People don't even know what pvp is. For the 40 billionth time I have seperately clearly defeated the idea that anyone can dislike everything that pvp can be. Go back and read and tell me why thats not true.
Plain and simple heartless you and many others here lack the maturity level to be arguing with me. You spew out the same bs over and over again with no basis in reality which is no more useful than if you simply said "LOOK AT ME"
adurran -
EQ does not disprove the theory because the game has not been out forever, and many people have not thought it was fun forever. Just because they release a new expansion every 6 months doesn't mean that its fun forever either even if they never stop. Because before that expansion is up people probably do get bored with whats there. If people want to go on about eq, then ill go check out their forums and see just how many bitch threads there are about boringness. So don't try to bluff me here if its not true.
Ill admit that there maybe games people play for a long time simply because they have a group of friends that they enjoy interacting with there. Like I said my argument addresses the game aspect, and I would hold that this is not a trait of an mmorpg. Because you can talk on the phone or on aim, or roger wilco in the background and have fun, yet this does not make the game good. The point where this really becomes clear is when a really fun game that ALSO has good social interaction (which isn't difficult at all) people will have much more fun playing that and will leave games like AO in a heartbeat.
There are plenty of PVP games that people play that were ruined by carebear types, most of whom were just immature and didnt want to adapt to the enviornment (and was encouraged not to by the gms) The most rediculous statements such people make is after they fool the developers into ruining the game, and 90% of the population leaves, they try and say that the game is not pvp based because all the pvp players left when the game was ruined. And the only reason carebears (in my opinion usually newbies who havent adjusted to a new game yet) are able to intimidate developers is because any time a huge number of new players enters a game base from a release you have a lot of people who are going to be learning things the hard way the first time. And therefore be bitching on the forums. In the case of many pvp based games, the developers will ruin the game at the site of this, and then wonder what the heck happened when even the carebears have left because they realized the game is boring now (not that they would ever admit it was their fault)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
I realize theres more carebears out there then pvpers and thats cool....its sad but its ok. What I think the pvpers are tryin to say is dont get a pvp game and then whine like a lil bitch when u get wrecked by a pker. If ur a carebear play carebear games. Dont getta game where ur gonna get killed and then you call on for help to the gm's over and over again. Its just makes a pker even more pissed. Especially when the game gets changed for the carebears.
And it's remarks like those that give legit PKers a bad name. You TMcC are not a PKer, you're a griefer. Flooding the forums with you childish name calling and remarks. That's the same attitude that ruined UO. Instead of giving positive feedback into why PvP should be implemented you retort with how you can whup someone's azz in 2 secs flat. Get real. If by resorting to such tactic you think you are helping the cause you're not, you're just adding against it. Do us a favor and read my quote before you speak.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
"--You can't possibly know weather you like everything that pvp could possibly be without A) Experiencing all possible instances of it (probably infinite) or Combining some experience of it with rational thought which is what I am doing.
And btw in case you are wondering, Yes I can even explain why people like you come on to forums and bust in to rational debate popping off at the mouth with mindless meetooism. The only reason I am arguing with you instead of just writing you off as no better than animals is because you have the potential to think rationally, you just have no motivation to use it. By repeatedly shoving reality in your face I hope that one day you will realize there is merit to simple logic, and will have made the world a better place. "
Now read what I have posted. I never said you were wrong in anything other than you are trying to impose your opinions on others. I clearly stated why people dont like PvP, and have stated it again for you since you seem to lack reading comprehension. If someone dont think something is fun they WILL NOT ENJOY it no matter what! You will never make someone like something that they simply do not like. I dont care if you try to be rational or irrational.
"--Premise 1 Most people don't know why they do or do not like something"
I gave you a reason why people dont like PvP. They either dont want to compete or dont want that type of compition. Now is that so hard to understand?
I never came into this thread and said ME ME ME ME. I stated my opinions on why people like PvE over PvP. I also stated it didnt matter either way to me. I dont dislike either.
You are doing just what I started my post of with. Your trying to impose YOUR OPINIONS on those that dont really give a rats ass about PvP. Everyone is intitled to their own opinions, so who the hell are you to say other wise? If someone dont like something they dont need to explaine to the mass why they dont like something.
Maybe you should take your own advice and read next time before you post.
---------------------------- Omol da'Ox The Blooded
For many players PvP doesn't simulate the mind. Its exporing the world and finding things that does and no amount of PvP will offer that unless the devs develop PvP realated content, the exact problem you stated with PvE games, devs can't keep up with the demand. You might find it fun fighting other players over and over non stop for weeks but I consider than no different to killing rats over and over for weeks, if there is no new story to uncover its going to get old fast. Yay I killed Bob again, oh look its Bill I will kill him again..*yawn* If I could kill Bill and it did something to advance my character, maybe PvP was in some way linked to quests, that would change things. Suddenly Bill is no longer a rat with better AI, there is a point to killing him, a story behind his death and a goal to be reached. My point is that PvP alone wont keep people playing, nor will killing players for the same goal every time (such as destroying a player city..that they will build again so you can destroy it again). The only way PvP will keep players playing long term is if it is somehow linked with PvE content and story. Unreal suits me find for pointless PvP action.
I don't think your wong nor do I think your correct. I don't think its as clear cut as you make it out to be, there is far more to it than "add PvP and the game will last".
If AI develops more (and it will) then the same experience can be gained without PvP. I would be much more interested in what your thoughts on the matter are when that level of AI is attained.
Originally posted by Omol "--You can't possibly know weather you like everything that pvp could possibly be without A) Experiencing all possible instances of it (probably infinite) or Combining some experience of it with rational thought which is what I am doing. And btw in case you are wondering, Yes I can even explain why people like you come on to forums and bust in to rational debate popping off at the mouth with mindless meetooism. The only reason I am arguing with you instead of just writing you off as no better than animals is because you have the potential to think rationally, you just have no motivation to use it. By repeatedly shoving reality in your face I hope that one day you will realize there is merit to simple logic, and will have made the world a better place. " Now read what I have posted. I never said you were wrong in anything other than you are trying to impose your opinions on others. I clearly stated why people dont like PvP, and have stated it again for you since you seem to lack reading comprehension. If someone dont think something is fun they WILL NOT ENJOY it no matter what! You will never make someone like something that they simply do not like. I dont care if you try to be rational or irrational. "--Premise 1 Most people don't know why they do or do not like something" I gave you a reason why people dont like PvP. They either dont want to compete or dont want that type of compition. Now is that so hard to understand? I never came into this thread and said ME ME ME ME. I stated my opinions on why people like PvE over PvP. I also stated it didnt matter either way to me. I dont dislike either. You are doing just what I started my post of with. Your trying to impose YOUR OPINIONS on those that dont really give a rats ass about PvP. Everyone is intitled to their own opinions, so who the hell are you to say other wise? If someone dont like something they dont need to explaine to the mass why they dont like something. Maybe you should take your own advice and read next time before you post. ---------------------------- Omol da'Ox The Blooded
Because your opinion is obvious, and undeniably wrong, and you refuse to admit it or even attempt to dispute the crystal clear argument I made as to why it is impossible for someone to like pvp. To keep stating it after that is selfish. If you believed your opinion wasn't wrong you would have a reason why and I'd be happy to here it. You don't. That is why it is the same as claiming "ME ME ME" You want your opinion to be respected even when you know its wrong.
If you don't know why you don't like something, then you can't possibly know if you would not like all possible instances of it. That is really obvious... If you are going to claim that you were born with some genetic dislike of all instances of pvp then you are being rediculous. If your not going to use your god given sense then don't argue in threads like this.
@ Horrid you are wrong... maybe it is pointless to argue with you because you will refuse to see that you are wrong until you experience a good type of pvp. But you are still wrong. Gamble pvp is much more fun then fps fighting or any other type of pvp for the same reason that rpgs are fun. You are progressing towards a point where you will be stronger.. to pvp when you have something to lose and something to gain as well relevant to your status in that game world completely changes the experience. You are completely pumped up on adrenaline and if you win it is the ultimate feeling. There is a reason gambling is addictive in real life. To deny what I am saying is to claim that it is the same feeling to practice batting in cages for baseball and to be the last hitter in the bottom of the 9th, bases loaded 2 outs and your team is down 1 point.. And everything you have posted is addressed in my argument which you probably didnt even read or again you would have a reason for the things you say....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Wew.... god do you guys know how long it takes to read through this post from begining to end!? Any idea?
Sheesh you sure as hell didn't make it easy on a guy to keep current did ya...
*Well I'm going downstairs for a smoke.*
The only reason I'm stating this is because I feel the need to inflict even more pollution on this tread.
10 minutes and two cigs later-
Back
Ok now that my fingers are thourghly numb, I would care to put forth the message that I was attempting to put down before my nic fit.
As a former player of dark age of camelot, and student of Philosphy and Psychology I understand what you are trying to say Kriminal99.
When I started playing Daoc all I could think about was getting lvl enough to particpate in the battle grouds. Finally after much leveling I made it. There I fought, died, was resurected, and fought some more. My mind filling with the clank of swords and the woosh of spell effects. It was a thrilling experance.
As time passed I moved passed the battle grounds and found fellow gamers such as myself, people not only interested in pvp, but interested in the art of war itself. We studdied, tweeked, gathered items, all in preperation for the havoic we would unlesh on the unsuspecting Mids and Hibs who would unfortently cross our paths.
Finally the time had come, studdied and prepared our group ventured forth unto the Frontier. The group we had assembeld was myself, a reaver, two minsterals, and a paladin. With endurance chanting and run song blaring we tore into enemy teritory. Hills and mountains momentary glances as we effortlessly glided over their expances, in search of one thing, "The Kill".
At last we stubled across a group of them, a Mid patrol exiting the keep. Cousiously we circled our pray, never letting them get more than a glimpse of us at one time.
Finally we could tell that the time was right, our group of four split up into two groups, each taking up positions to the right and the left of the wandering mids. The word was sent, and my heart jumped, as both the minstral and myself plummeted down the snowy reavene and beset our pray.
The healer fell first, falling to a volly of shouts set forth by the minstrals and myself. Then just when they where pulling out their swords, one of our minstral cast an area mezz and the whole lot was frozen, sure some purged and tried to fight, but in the end our little troup had over powered thier suppieror numbers, and had slaughtered each mid to the man.
As time went on so did the battles, from small scirmishes as I just descrbed to larger raids and keep runs. But as the battles kept comming, that feeling of exilleration kept getting smaller and smaller until one day it vanished entirely.
Hoping that this was part of the grind I made myself a Fire Wizard, maybe playing a new class might rejuvinate my passion for the battle, but it was in vein. To killing with the wizard was to much of the same. Other classes came and went, more and still my heart failed to race.
I had all but given up on dark age, when one board night I found myself examining the population counts when I happened across a Co-op server. Figuring I had nothing to loose I loged in and made a character. A celt blademaster. A class I would haven never chosen in a rvr server do to it's lack of usful pvp skills.
The first thing I noticed when I logged was how beautiful the world looked. I started in the hib's (at the time, new island teritory, that came wish the expansion shrouded isle). The land was a beatuiful giant red wood forst. Ripe with life, a stark contrast from the temprate forstest and marshlands I was used to seeing in albion. My jaw dropped as I oggeled at it's beauty.
Then figuring I had spent enough time gawking i though I would walk around a bit, thusly lvled myself to 5 and ran across a traveling necromancer. He told me that even though he was 37 lvl this was the first time that he had travel to the hibs lands, and like me he was in awe. It was then that he explained to me that he had seen all sorts of beautiful areas that he had never gotten to explore before. I told him that I had come here for much the same reason. And so we talked for awhile about the diffrent areas until we he felt it was time to move on, and handed me 200gp, on the condition that I would use this money to see the world, and not just spend it fiverously on arms and armour.
So I took up the Necromaners call and began the grind of leveling myself to be of age enough to travel and then began my quest to see the world. And thusly I did... and you know what? Even though I didn't kill a single player while I was there. I had more fun playing in the Co-op than I did playing royal butcher on Merlin.
Now I'm not trying to attack your argument, through this story I'm hopping that I'm making one of my own.
(I hope you pardon my spelling I havn't slept in a little over a day and I'm about ot pass out)
See pvp is fine and all, but it's only a small piece of a verry large puzzle. As you have read, all I did when I came to dark age, was gather all my attention onto the battle, thats all I was interested in. By focusing entirely on that I missed a good part of a larger whole. Each lvl wasn't assossaed with an acomplishment, it was just another hurdel for me to stumble over so I could get to the point in the game that I wanted to be. Each time I "Dinged" I didn't see an extra stats or new abbilites, I saw just more exp I had to get through so I could get to the player verse player and once I got there while fun and exciting at first, the sensation was only a tempary one. And it left me with a sort of emptiness one can only get by several hundred hours of their life wasted.
Now I know what your rebuttle will be, (or at least I think I do).
You'll say: Well MrVice in the game I craft or in the game I perpose, I would remove those hurdels so you could skip those unessary step and move straight to the action if you want to...
To which I would respond with: I've played that game, and it's call Shadowbane. It's possibley the worst mmo I've ever played in my life. (Sorry you shadowbane fanes, just my opinion). The game bullsters the kind of logic that you put forth in your arguement.
"Players want acheivement, we can't offer them constant questes so give them pvp. Let them create socities and have the abbility to tear them down." That how we create a dynamic enviroment, and the recognizion one seeks from these games."
The only problem with this line of thinking is that even though shadowbane restrics player killing to people above 10lvl, it still presents to much choas for any one person to handel. Sure players form guilds, and even town and empires. But what does it all mean if you town is whiped out in a raid when your not looking. After a while players begin to wonder, why bother. And don't just quit making cities, but quit your game entierly.
Remember to the victor goes the spoils, and no mater how you sugar coat it there will be loosers, big loosers. People don't want a game which they have to pay 50 dollars for which sets them up to loose. Fun is fun, and deaths are fine, but some people just don't have the skill or motivation for the kind of attention that pvp requires. You said it yourself, people don't start out hating pvp, for most of them it just takes 10 good deaths in a row for them to give up on the process entirely. For others it might just be that they where beaten up as a child, or perhaps that they came from a broken home.
I'm not saying that it's disfucntal to hate pvp, I'm just saying weather people know why or not they have their reasons and no mater how much you attempt to persuade them with logic, they still are going to hold on to those reasons.
So instead of trying to deny them their belives, why don't you attempt to accomidate for them. Instead of a game based on pvp why don't you say that pvp can signifcantly help the life of an mmorpg by offering higher level character new opertunites, and by so doing increase the longevity of a game.
(Oh btw I know you've chosen to ignore it before, but you have admited that you have let your personal experance emprint themselves on to your arguement, by doing so you have violated one of the eight principale falicies in logic and in so doing have disproven your own argument so cut with that logic crap will ya.(oh and I've been through a few logic corses so don't try and say I don't know what the hell I'm taliking about I know a mistake when I see one, fess up and admit your mistake, pussy footing around it and acting high and mighty just makes you loose any intergrety that you had, or is this verry argument a sorce of pleasure for you and thats why you haven't quit.))
With that being said I hope you could understand this, as I said I am exhusted so I appolgize for the many spelling and gramatical errors. And maybe just maybe you'll understand that pvp is good fun, but it's not for everyone. And while it can signifcantly increese the life of an mmorpg, it isn't nessarly a perfect recipe for sucess.
Mr. Vice
-PS: Personaly when ever I feel the need to slaughter someone mercalously I would rather play UT2k3 or Counter Strike than fumble around the aquward combat controls of an mmorpg. But maybe thats just me.
What is the definition of PvP based ? I don't know too many games that have actually been made and balanced with PvP in mind. DaoC and Shadowbane would probably be the only ones that I can think of. Not counting PS which is more an mmofps. Of the upcoming games there isn't much of that either CoH has no pvp, EQ2...don't think so, WoW...should be but I doubt it will be.
PvP is always a good thing to have in an mmorpg, adds a ton of content to a game, but if you consider player subscription and the games concerned PvP isn't the end all ingredient.
It's better be hated for who you are, than loved for who you aren't.
It's better be hated for who you are, than loved for who you aren't.
Hardcore pvpers dont buy pve games dude. They buy pvp games. All of my pvp buddies on line are waiting for a new great pvp mmorpg. Makes perfect sense....I think the problem is you have a new player to an mmorpg and they take part in pvp. They either love it and make most if not all of their gameplay around it or they dislike it aint dont take part in the pvp. well ur quote from yesterday was supposed to be with this post ramonski....
I had this long post written out where I address your issuses, and for some reason it didn't go in.
sigh.
Let me try to address your idea using your logic.
You are trying to say that "to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based." yet your arguments are using FPs as your basis. You are comparing apples to oranges. An FPs is NOT a MMORPG.
so, using your logic:
For a truck to be usful to me, it must have a cupholder. My car has a cupholder and I find that to be very useful.
That is saying, that from my perspective, I want a place to put my coffee, and if a truck lacks a cupholder, it is useless to me. This totally discounts the fact that millions of people use trucks to tow or haul things around and 99.9% of those people couldn't care less if that truck had a cupholder. They could live with out it. They bought their truck for vastly different reasons.
What I am saying is that for YOU, you want PvP or the game isn't fun. But considering the number of people who play MMORPGs that have no (or limited) PvP, you are attempting to discount the success of those games by saying that the rest of us are deluding ourselves. We couldn't care less if a game has PvP or not. We can live with out it. We play those games for vastly different reasons than you do.
Comments
Kriminal99
While I might grant you that our definitions of wave and particle are incorrect, that still does not help answer the idea of infinitely many contradictory explanations of the quantum word that, by definition, are all correct.
Also, Logic, like Science, is a human construct and is therefor not absolute and perfect. To think otherwise would be illogical. An imperfect being cannot produce a perfect idea or system.
As a Philosophy Professor once told me "Logic does not apply to matters of the heart, don't believe me, just look at my marriage."
I hate to say this because I know emotional people will complain but just because a person is a philosiphy professor does not gaurantee any degree of ability in logic or philosophy beyond memorizing things that are in the books he had to read (which he may have forgotten) ....
Lets look at a hypothetical situation for a second. In this hypothetical situation, a person does not have freewill. They have a single path througout their life dictated by everything that has happened to them before and their genetic make up and input from their 5 senses. (most of which can be divided in to smaller parts, for example rods/cones for eyes, 10 distinct taste receptors etc) Their consious mind process a limited amount of information, and their unconsious mind processes much more at a time and communicates with the consious mind through emotions.
Now in a computer programming school they will tell you that the average person can only consiously consider 7 things at a time. Now IF a person was as I said in this hypothetical situation, to comprehend that fully you would have to be able to consiously consider all your past experiences at once, all data from all your senses, and then derive some obscenely complicated physics formula that would describe how a person would act under any circumstance. Needless to say that exceeds the limit of being able to consider 7 things at a time. So what, in this purely hypothetical situation, would it feel like to be a human being?
Probably like you had Free Will...
IE such statements as that professor made have no basis in reality, just because you do not yet understand something does not mean it makes no sense. And imagine how rediculous these statements sound to people that do understand that subject. Logic cannot be wrong by its very nature. Logic does not allow people to claim something that could ever possibly be wrong.
Give me any quantum physical definition or occurence and I will explain to you why it doesn't contradict logic. I do it once and you simply say there are others you cannot do that with... Sounds like a copout to me.
@ Ramon In UO you can attack anyone anywhere (well except for brand new newbies now)... when you die you lose all your stuff.. If UO is not PVP based then no game is...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Agreed, some people who have PhD's know little to nothing of what they are supposed to be an expert on. But with that same token, you, my friend, come into this thread with even less credentials and claim to profess to know all there is to know about logic (including how it, by nature, cannot be wrong). How do we, as the obviously non-logic minded public, know that you are not just feeding us a steaming load of bull? Cause, as you have implied numerous time, none of us in this tread seem to know ANYTHING about logic. Please do not take offence by the fact that I scoff your knowledge and understanding of logic, as you did my professor. If you have some truly impressive credentials, please let me know, so that I can stop this foolhardy argument.
I would also like to know why you went on some "free will" spree on a quote that was more of an afterthought, instead of tackling the real issue of the fact that Philosophy is simply a human construct that cannot be completely correct. Nothing created by humans can be any more perfect that the humans that created it. And also, saying that logic cannot be wrong because of its ideals and premiss... thats like defining a word with itself. Something cannot be undisputably correct and still be considered to have any real meaning outside of faith. It is only somethings ability to be argued and proven wrong that gives it meaning. Your undying faith in logic is admirable, but it seems to be nothing more then faith, with no real background in reality. However, real logic is disputable, and has been proven to work many times over... but it IS DISPUTABLE. It is not correct simply because its logic and it has to be.
Last, I never said that the wave/particle duality example was one of the explanations of Quantum Physics... as it is not, it is simply an explanation of one of the many problems that arises when you look at the realm of the extremely small. I would be glad to give you an example of two explanations that work AND contradict eachother, however to do so with complete accuracy I would need to review the theories as I am not 100% sure of their wording. My text books, articles on the subject (not written by me), and lab notes on the subject are at work, and it being a Sunday, I am not at work. So I will defer that part of the conversation till I can research and present a 100% accurate, non-skewed, version of the theories that are currently in position. Call that a copout if you will, but I, for one, would like to try to offer a complete non-bias example.
Originally posted by Kriminal99
@ Ramon In UO you can attack anyone anywhere (well except for brand new newbies now)... when you die you lose all your stuff.. If UO is not PVP based then no game is...
I said based. UO is not based on PvP. That's as far from the truth as saying EA created UO. Origins when making UO set out to create a game where players could create characters that had endless possibilities and that included the threat of being attack by real players (That was the whole concept around the Ultima series: virtue and moral). Not a game where PvP combat could flourish with a sprinkle of cooking here and tailoring there.
Come now don't be so blinded by your own narcissistic attitude that you don't realize the meaning of what a game being based off a concept is.
And for the record here are 2 games I know of that are based off of a PvP concept:
Shadowbane
Dark Age of Camelot
Both in which are sorely lacking in the PvE department.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
As Ramonski7 pointed out, UO is not a PvP based game. It is a game with a PvP element. An element that one can completely avoid by staying in Trammel. If you compare the size of the Trammel populationl to that of Felucca, you will see what people preffer.
Neocron has almost no players. Honestly, how many people actually play that game? A few hundred? A thousand at most? There are more people playing on the Trammel side of UO on any server right now than there are playing Neocron.
I played Neocron for the longest time and never got bored of it before they altered the pvp to make the gambles in it terribly worthless.
Finally we get to the gist of the whole argument. You played Neocron. You never got bored of it... Your whole argument and your chain of logic is nothing more than a description of a game that you would find fun. So yes, it is logical to you. It is however absurd to someone who does not like PvP and does not share your views.
That is totaly out of context with this whole topic. This whole topic is about why MMORPG must be PvP based to be successful. It is however not the case as is evident by the ammount of people who play PvP based games like EVE and games with a "carebear" option like UO.
By the way, Origin, the creator of UO, was a subsidiary of EA.
That's what you're saying. It's a fair perspective.
To the poster above, acting like that on a message board isn't going to stop the bullies at school from beating you up, you may actually want to try to fight them back instead.
Anyhow, as it's been mentioned somewhat through this thread, Everquest alone disproves your entire theory. I'm fairly certain that EQ has the largest subscription base of people that have stuck with 1 MMORPG for more then 2 years. The fact is people can get just as much enjoyment fighting 'epic' encounters for items to increase the 'value' of thier character. The PvE group perfers to just compare thier gear while the PvP group would rather compare skills (although this could easily be argued as pvp is more about ganking then an actual straight forward 1v1 test of skills).
What it comes down to is most people that feel the same as the original poster like to tell those who would perfer not to PvP that in order for them to have fun, they're going to have to play the game your way which just doesn't work. Just know that there are a LOT of people that do not consider being 'ganked' when all the wanted to go do is get together to go kill some uber mob as being fun.
Me personally, I perfer the EQ style game with the main focus on PvE with just a side of PvP involved, such as in DAoC although that may have been a bit too focused on PvP for my liking.
Premise 1 You do realize your story goes perfectly along with premise 1 don't you? You are a cleric, people respect you for your skill, that makes you happy. This is almost exactly what premise 1 says... except it does not say that it is nessecary to be working toward the real world respect that you got, it can be imagined. This is all premise 1 is trying to say... If I need to reword it again I guess I will...
Premise 2 and Premise 3 both are directed towards single player games and you are arguing as if they were directed towards MMORPGS.
Premise 4 Simply put all this premise says is that if a developer tries to stretch the game content it does not extend the length of time the player can have fun playing the game. You failed to even address this claim...
Premise 5 Ok... First... Accumulated content is irrelevant. Second I made no claim about the time to program game content... (and I know how to program) The claim here is that a player can use up developed content at a rate of more than 10x that in which it is created for the average developer. Again you do not even dispute the premise....
HOWEVER you claim that there is enough content to keep someone occupied for a really long time. This is nowhere near the perpetual fun this argument is dealing with, but maybe noone cares if a game is really fun forever, maybe a couple years would be good enough. However, I know plenty of people who became bored with everquest. No they probably did not play every class. For that matter have you tried every class? If not why not? Probably because the classes and levels even really are repetitive. There may even be two classes that really are drastically different. I would SERIOUSLY doubt that all however many classes you said there were different enough to warrant playing seperately. To be honest, the fact that anyone has gotten bored of everquest tells me that the content is somewhat repetitive.
Premise 6 Again are you attempting to address my premise here or not? If your saying that EQ uses something other than pvp succesfully, you just contradicted yourself because you said they are avoidable and the premises recognizes this possibility but states that then players will simply avoid them so it does not slow the consumption of content. If you are claiming that players do things which involve time sinks because they want the rewards, well then at least you would have thought of something I didn't put in my argument... However thats just freaking torture and I think its obvious that makes a game unfun...
Premise 7 Lalala... wake me up when you adress one of my premises... This one says that a person is the only person with whom the outcome of battle will remain unpredictable if you want to take a second go at it...
Premise 8 *yawn* so you are saying that there was no risk involved and a slight chance of good rewards... how does this contradict the premise...
Premise 9 Wait times are not fun. Talking to your wife might be fun. Thats nice. I am looking at the gaming aspect of games. IE if a person had noone to talk to. Why? because Social interaction is not the limiting factor in how fun a game can be. Maybe if I load up the worst mmo to ever exist while talking to my girlfriend on the phone I can have a good old time. That doesn't make the game good.
ConClusion (oh thank god)
Fair gambles by choice: Sure they can. Your expierence in MMOS seems to be limited to everquest. This is not a good PVP game. PVP requires a player to be able to use many different strategies and tactics. For example an fps rpg hybrid like neocron. Of course pVP can happen that way. Suppose there is a right for a certain level of players. If you step in there, then you expect to fight players of that level.
Pretty much nothing you said even addresses my argument...
Ok to the first part. That is simple. A person with a PHD is supposed to have more knowledge to support them to their efforts to find the truth. Everything I am saying is simply just plain common sense if you choose to put 2 and 2 together. I dont even think I said that you all do not have logical ability. Regardless the truth is that you are forsaking it to say whatever feels like a good thing to say to you. Example: Logic does not apply to matters of the heart. What the heck does that even mean? It means nothing. It makes no sense. Its a feel good statement. That a professor in philosiphy would say that is very saddening. And btw that is stepping outside the bounds of his doctorate anyways because that is psychology, which I may very well have studied more of than him. If you want to claim it is not because he said logic, well if that was true then the field of psychology could not exist could it? Yet it does and has accomplished much.
I went off on the tangent about free will for this reason. Most people who go on making rediculously meaningless statements like logic does apply to fun and stuff like that usually know damn well that they have no clue what they are talking about, but justify continued arguing with remote ideas that they may not even be 100% aware of. In this case it is almost certainly that the person feels that they have free will so therefore nothing could figure out what I might do so logic must not be able to be used to figure out what I might do. Since the people here are too immature to summon meaningful arguments before posting I am left no choice but to guess as to what could possibly be goign through their heads. I was simply pointing out that this is not nessecarily the case, in case anyone's whole opinion was based on this.
Until I see you say something that contradicts logic itself then I will not believe you. But I am telling you it is a fool's errand... your time would better be spent getting a clearer understanding of what logic is and what it is not.
@ RAMONSKI and HEARTLESS
If UO is not pvp based then no game is pvp based end of story
Anyways Neocron was MUCH more populated than it is now back when pvp included decent gambles between players. Heartless what are you on about? Suddenly because you see one experience where I learned about MMORPGS and used simple logic to deduce what made the game fun and what did not you think my argument is less strong without even reading it. If you can't dispute one of my premises in the argument than you have nothing legitimate to say. People don't even know what pvp is. For the 40 billionth time I have seperately clearly defeated the idea that anyone can dislike everything that pvp can be. Go back and read and tell me why thats not true.
Plain and simple heartless you and many others here lack the maturity level to be arguing with me. You spew out the same bs over and over again with no basis in reality which is no more useful than if you simply said "LOOK AT ME"
adurran -
EQ does not disprove the theory because the game has not been out forever, and many people have not thought it was fun forever. Just because they release a new expansion every 6 months doesn't mean that its fun forever either even if they never stop. Because before that expansion is up people probably do get bored with whats there. If people want to go on about eq, then ill go check out their forums and see just how many bitch threads there are about boringness. So don't try to bluff me here if its not true.
Ill admit that there maybe games people play for a long time simply because they have a group of friends that they enjoy interacting with there. Like I said my argument addresses the game aspect, and I would hold that this is not a trait of an mmorpg. Because you can talk on the phone or on aim, or roger wilco in the background and have fun, yet this does not make the game good. The point where this really becomes clear is when a really fun game that ALSO has good social interaction (which isn't difficult at all) people will have much more fun playing that and will leave games like AO in a heartbeat.
There are plenty of PVP games that people play that were ruined by carebear types, most of whom were just immature and didnt want to adapt to the enviornment (and was encouraged not to by the gms) The most rediculous statements such people make is after they fool the developers into ruining the game, and 90% of the population leaves, they try and say that the game is not pvp based because all the pvp players left when the game was ruined. And the only reason carebears (in my opinion usually newbies who havent adjusted to a new game yet) are able to intimidate developers is because any time a huge number of new players enters a game base from a release you have a lot of people who are going to be learning things the hard way the first time. And therefore be bitching on the forums. In the case of many pvp based games, the developers will ruin the game at the site of this, and then wonder what the heck happened when even the carebears have left because they realized the game is boring now (not that they would ever admit it was their fault)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Original post by TMcC
I realize theres more carebears out there then pvpers and thats cool....its sad but its ok. What I think the pvpers are tryin to say is dont get a pvp game and then whine like a lil bitch when u get wrecked by a pker. If ur a carebear play carebear games. Dont getta game where ur gonna get killed and then you call on for help to the gm's over and over again. Its just makes a pker even more pissed. Especially when the game gets changed for the carebears.
And it's remarks like those that give legit PKers a bad name. You TMcC are not a PKer, you're a griefer. Flooding the forums with you childish name calling and remarks. That's the same attitude that ruined UO. Instead of giving positive feedback into why PvP should be implemented you retort with how you can whup someone's azz in 2 secs flat. Get real. If by resorting to such tactic you think you are helping the cause you're not, you're just adding against it. Do us a favor and read my quote before you speak.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
"--You can't possibly know weather you like everything that pvp could possibly be without A) Experiencing all possible instances of it (probably infinite) or
Combining some experience of it with rational thought which is what I am doing.
And btw in case you are wondering, Yes I can even explain why people like you come on to forums and bust in to rational debate popping off at the mouth with mindless meetooism. The only reason I am arguing with you instead of just writing you off as no better than animals is because you have the potential to think rationally, you just have no motivation to use it. By repeatedly shoving reality in your face I hope that one day you will realize there is merit to simple logic, and will have made the world a better place. "
Now read what I have posted. I never said you were wrong in anything other than you are trying to impose your opinions on others. I clearly stated why people dont like PvP, and have stated it again for you since you seem to lack reading comprehension. If someone dont think something is fun they WILL NOT ENJOY it no matter what! You will never make someone like something that they simply do not like. I dont care if you try to be rational or irrational.
"--Premise 1 Most people don't know why they do or do not like something"
I gave you a reason why people dont like PvP. They either dont want to compete or dont want that type of compition. Now is that so hard to understand?
I never came into this thread and said ME ME ME ME. I stated my opinions on why people like PvE over PvP. I also stated it didnt matter either way to me. I dont dislike either.
You are doing just what I started my post of with. Your trying to impose YOUR OPINIONS on those that dont really give a rats ass about PvP. Everyone is intitled to their own opinions, so who the hell are you to say other wise? If someone dont like something they dont need to explaine to the mass why they dont like something.
Maybe you should take your own advice and read next time before you post.
----------------------------
Omol da'Ox
The Blooded
----------------------------
Omol da'Ox
For many players PvP doesn't simulate the mind. Its exporing the world and finding things that does and no amount of PvP will offer that unless the devs develop PvP realated content, the exact problem you stated with PvE games, devs can't keep up with the demand. You might find it fun fighting other players over and over non stop for weeks but I consider than no different to killing rats over and over for weeks, if there is no new story to uncover its going to get old fast. Yay I killed Bob again, oh look its Bill I will kill him again..*yawn* If I could kill Bill and it did something to advance my character, maybe PvP was in some way linked to quests, that would change things. Suddenly Bill is no longer a rat with better AI, there is a point to killing him, a story behind his death and a goal to be reached. My point is that PvP alone wont keep people playing, nor will killing players for the same goal every time (such as destroying a player city..that they will build again so you can destroy it again). The only way PvP will keep players playing long term is if it is somehow linked with PvE content and story. Unreal suits me find for pointless PvP action.
I don't think your wong nor do I think your correct. I don't think its as clear cut as you make it out to be, there is far more to it than "add PvP and the game will last".
If AI develops more (and it will) then the same experience can be gained without PvP. I would be much more interested in what your thoughts on the matter are when that level of AI is attained.
Because your opinion is obvious, and undeniably wrong, and you refuse to admit it or even attempt to dispute the crystal clear argument I made as to why it is impossible for someone to like pvp. To keep stating it after that is selfish. If you believed your opinion wasn't wrong you would have a reason why and I'd be happy to here it. You don't. That is why it is the same as claiming "ME ME ME" You want your opinion to be respected even when you know its wrong.
If you don't know why you don't like something, then you can't possibly know if you would not like all possible instances of it. That is really obvious... If you are going to claim that you were born with some genetic dislike of all instances of pvp then you are being rediculous. If your not going to use your god given sense then don't argue in threads like this.
@ Horrid you are wrong... maybe it is pointless to argue with you because you will refuse to see that you are wrong until you experience a good type of pvp. But you are still wrong. Gamble pvp is much more fun then fps fighting or any other type of pvp for the same reason that rpgs are fun. You are progressing towards a point where you will be stronger.. to pvp when you have something to lose and something to gain as well relevant to your status in that game world completely changes the experience. You are completely pumped up on adrenaline and if you win it is the ultimate feeling. There is a reason gambling is addictive in real life. To deny what I am saying is to claim that it is the same feeling to practice batting in cages for baseball and to be the last hitter in the bottom of the 9th, bases loaded 2 outs and your team is down 1 point.. And everything you have posted is addressed in my argument which you probably didnt even read or again you would have a reason for the things you say....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Wew.... god do you guys know how long it takes to read through this post from begining to end!? Any idea?
Sheesh you sure as hell didn't make it easy on a guy to keep current did ya...
*Well I'm going downstairs for a smoke.*
The only reason I'm stating this is because I feel the need to inflict even more pollution on this tread.
10 minutes and two cigs later-
Back
Ok now that my fingers are thourghly numb, I would care to put forth the message that I was attempting to put down before my nic fit.
As a former player of dark age of camelot, and student of Philosphy and Psychology I understand what you are trying to say Kriminal99.
When I started playing Daoc all I could think about was getting lvl enough to particpate in the battle grouds. Finally after much leveling I made it. There I fought, died, was resurected, and fought some more. My mind filling with the clank of swords and the woosh of spell effects. It was a thrilling experance.
As time passed I moved passed the battle grounds and found fellow gamers such as myself, people not only interested in pvp, but interested in the art of war itself. We studdied, tweeked, gathered items, all in preperation for the havoic we would unlesh on the unsuspecting Mids and Hibs who would unfortently cross our paths.
Finally the time had come, studdied and prepared our group ventured forth unto the Frontier. The group we had assembeld was myself, a reaver, two minsterals, and a paladin. With endurance chanting and run song blaring we tore into enemy teritory. Hills and mountains momentary glances as we effortlessly glided over their expances, in search of one thing, "The Kill".
At last we stubled across a group of them, a Mid patrol exiting the keep. Cousiously we circled our pray, never letting them get more than a glimpse of us at one time.
Finally we could tell that the time was right, our group of four split up into two groups, each taking up positions to the right and the left of the wandering mids. The word was sent, and my heart jumped, as both the minstral and myself plummeted down the snowy reavene and beset our pray.
The healer fell first, falling to a volly of shouts set forth by the minstrals and myself. Then just when they where pulling out their swords, one of our minstral cast an area mezz and the whole lot was frozen, sure some purged and tried to fight, but in the end our little troup had over powered thier suppieror numbers, and had slaughtered each mid to the man.
As time went on so did the battles, from small scirmishes as I just descrbed to larger raids and keep runs. But as the battles kept comming, that feeling of exilleration kept getting smaller and smaller until one day it vanished entirely.
Hoping that this was part of the grind I made myself a Fire Wizard, maybe playing a new class might rejuvinate my passion for the battle, but it was in vein. To killing with the wizard was to much of the same. Other classes came and went, more and still my heart failed to race.
I had all but given up on dark age, when one board night I found myself examining the population counts when I happened across a Co-op server. Figuring I had nothing to loose I loged in and made a character. A celt blademaster. A class I would haven never chosen in a rvr server do to it's lack of usful pvp skills.
The first thing I noticed when I logged was how beautiful the world looked. I started in the hib's (at the time, new island teritory, that came wish the expansion shrouded isle). The land was a beatuiful giant red wood forst. Ripe with life, a stark contrast from the temprate forstest and marshlands I was used to seeing in albion. My jaw dropped as I oggeled at it's beauty.
Then figuring I had spent enough time gawking i though I would walk around a bit, thusly lvled myself to 5 and ran across a traveling necromancer. He told me that even though he was 37 lvl this was the first time that he had travel to the hibs lands, and like me he was in awe. It was then that he explained to me that he had seen all sorts of beautiful areas that he had never gotten to explore before. I told him that I had come here for much the same reason. And so we talked for awhile about the diffrent areas until we he felt it was time to move on, and handed me 200gp, on the condition that I would use this money to see the world, and not just spend it fiverously on arms and armour.
So I took up the Necromaners call and began the grind of leveling myself to be of age enough to travel and then began my quest to see the world. And thusly I did... and you know what? Even though I didn't kill a single player while I was there. I had more fun playing in the Co-op than I did playing royal butcher on Merlin.
Now I'm not trying to attack your argument, through this story I'm hopping that I'm making one of my own.
(I hope you pardon my spelling I havn't slept in a little over a day and I'm about ot pass out)
See pvp is fine and all, but it's only a small piece of a verry large puzzle. As you have read, all I did when I came to dark age, was gather all my attention onto the battle, thats all I was interested in. By focusing entirely on that I missed a good part of a larger whole. Each lvl wasn't assossaed with an acomplishment, it was just another hurdel for me to stumble over so I could get to the point in the game that I wanted to be. Each time I "Dinged" I didn't see an extra stats or new abbilites, I saw just more exp I had to get through so I could get to the player verse player and once I got there while fun and exciting at first, the sensation was only a tempary one. And it left me with a sort of emptiness one can only get by several hundred hours of their life wasted.
Now I know what your rebuttle will be, (or at least I think I do).
You'll say: Well MrVice in the game I craft or in the game I perpose, I would remove those hurdels so you could skip those unessary step and move straight to the action if you want to...
To which I would respond with: I've played that game, and it's call Shadowbane. It's possibley the worst mmo I've ever played in my life. (Sorry you shadowbane fanes, just my opinion). The game bullsters the kind of logic that you put forth in your arguement.
"Players want acheivement, we can't offer them constant questes so give them pvp. Let them create socities and have the abbility to tear them down." That how we create a dynamic enviroment, and the recognizion one seeks from these games."
The only problem with this line of thinking is that even though shadowbane restrics player killing to people above 10lvl, it still presents to much choas for any one person to handel. Sure players form guilds, and even town and empires. But what does it all mean if you town is whiped out in a raid when your not looking. After a while players begin to wonder, why bother. And don't just quit making cities, but quit your game entierly.
Remember to the victor goes the spoils, and no mater how you sugar coat it there will be loosers, big loosers. People don't want a game which they have to pay 50 dollars for which sets them up to loose. Fun is fun, and deaths are fine, but some people just don't have the skill or motivation for the kind of attention that pvp requires. You said it yourself, people don't start out hating pvp, for most of them it just takes 10 good deaths in a row for them to give up on the process entirely. For others it might just be that they where beaten up as a child, or perhaps that they came from a broken home.
I'm not saying that it's disfucntal to hate pvp, I'm just saying weather people know why or not they have their reasons and no mater how much you attempt to persuade them with logic, they still are going to hold on to those reasons.
So instead of trying to deny them their belives, why don't you attempt to accomidate for them. Instead of a game based on pvp why don't you say that pvp can signifcantly help the life of an mmorpg by offering higher level character new opertunites, and by so doing increase the longevity of a game.
(Oh btw I know you've chosen to ignore it before, but you have admited that you have let your personal experance emprint themselves on to your arguement, by doing so you have violated one of the eight principale falicies in logic and in so doing have disproven your own argument
so cut with that logic crap will ya.(oh and I've been through a few logic corses so don't try and say I don't know what the hell I'm taliking about I know a mistake when I see one, fess up and admit your mistake, pussy footing around it and acting high and mighty just makes you loose any intergrety that you had, or is this verry argument a sorce of pleasure for you and thats why you haven't quit.))
With that being said I hope you could understand this, as I said I am exhusted so I appolgize for the many spelling and gramatical errors. And maybe just maybe you'll understand that pvp is good fun, but it's not for everyone. And while it can signifcantly increese the life of an mmorpg, it isn't nessarly a perfect recipe for sucess.
Mr. Vice
-PS: Personaly when ever I feel the need to slaughter someone mercalously I would rather play UT2k3 or Counter Strike than fumble around the aquward combat controls of an mmorpg. But maybe thats just me.
To you MrVice.........*kneels respectfully*
Well said my friend.............well said indeed.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
What is the definition of PvP based ? I don't know too many games that have actually been made and balanced with PvP in mind. DaoC and Shadowbane would probably be the only ones that I can think of. Not counting PS which is more an mmofps. Of the upcoming games there isn't much of that either CoH has no pvp, EQ2...don't think so, WoW...should be but I doubt it will be.
PvP is always a good thing to have in an mmorpg, adds a ton of content to a game, but if you consider player subscription and the games concerned PvP isn't the end all ingredient.
It's better be hated for who you are, than loved for who you aren't.
It's better be hated for who you are, than loved for who you aren't.
I had this long post written out where I address your issuses, and for some reason it didn't go in.
sigh.
Let me try to address your idea using your logic.
You are trying to say that "to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based." yet your arguments are using FPs as your basis. You are comparing apples to oranges. An FPs is NOT a MMORPG.
so, using your logic:
For a truck to be usful to me, it must have a cupholder. My car has a cupholder and I find that to be very useful.
That is saying, that from my perspective, I want a place to put my coffee, and if a truck lacks a cupholder, it is useless to me. This totally discounts the fact that millions of people use trucks to tow or haul things around and 99.9% of those people couldn't care less if that truck had a cupholder. They could live with out it. They bought their truck for vastly different reasons.
What I am saying is that for YOU, you want PvP or the game isn't fun. But considering the number of people who play MMORPGs that have no (or limited) PvP, you are attempting to discount the success of those games by saying that the rest of us are deluding ourselves. We couldn't care less if a game has PvP or not. We can live with out it. We play those games for vastly different reasons than you do.