Originally posted by feedtherich I have NEVER heard of a person who has gone skydiving and NOT liked it. 99.9% of people who DON'T like skydiving, HAVEN'T DONE IT. They say they wouldn't like it because their of past experiences with falling (like falling off their bed at night) or learned perceptions such as watching someone fall and die on TV. To say that fun and emotion are not caused by the structure and chemistry of the brain is a complete falsehood. EVERYTHING that happens in this world is pure physics. Even though our brains are very complex, and there can be a lot of factors involved to every action/reaction, it is definitely possible to map these things out and make every single person completely predictable in any environment. Do you think you have a quasi-physical SOUL that determines what's fun for you? No, it's your human brain that is VERY similar to all these other human brains in the world, brains we have studied for hundreds of years, brains we have interviewed, observed, tested and disected. Will everyone have fun doing the exact same thing? No. But we are talking about MMORPG players here. If you enjoy PVE, then you should also enjoy the right kind of PVP. Because PVE is still PVP in the long run, since the NPC's you encounter act according to the instructions of the dev who programmed them. The reason people play multi-player games is to deal directly with people, not indirectly, as with single-player games. Wouldn't everyone rather fight a monster who has a complex personality and intelligence, rather than a mindless robot that does the same thing every time? This is the epitomy of monotony which equals BORING. PVP is the same as PVE except there is more variety and challenge. And we aren't talking about any PVP that has been done so far, we are talking about an enhanced system which prevents the types of negative experiences that have caused people to have poor conceptions of PVP. Please god please, help these poor people understand. We are not comparing apples to oranges here!!! We are comparing apples to apples. Yes some people don't like oranges, and some people don't like apples, but the people who like apples...LIKE APPLES! And what is being offered at this time is the idea of apples that don't rot over time. Isn't it safe to say that EVERYONE who likes apples would prefer ones that stayed edible and tasty for a longer period of time?? The only people who WOULDN'T like this are the people who like to eat rotten apples. OK, CASE CLOSED, THANKS!
Sorry, but MMORPG is the same as not all people liking skydiving, flying, rollercoasters, horror films, poetry, etc, etc..
Just because people like PvE, doesn't mean everyone will like PvP. Kriminal himself even said that they both are different do to the AI. Eventually everyone will want to try PvP because they will get bored with PvE and the challenge will become boring. Sorry, but I haven't gotten bored of it. Regular RPG's are nothing buy PvE and those games are some of the most successful on the market. There are a lot of people that just won't play PvP no matter how it's made. Plain and simple. That's the FACTS.
First off, you have not disproven the dictionary definition of fun, really you have reinforced it. Of course the word has different meanings because of it's subjective nature. You actually state your definition of fun, finally. Which is not actually anyone else view of fun at all. You are talking about the emotional triggers which cause the reaction of fun in ANY human being. The reason I am catching you out for using the wrong word is because it is what many of the people who responded to you have been talking about. But you always respond by stating they don't understand your definition of fun. They were actually not wrong in their posts, you simply were using the wrong word, the word fun doesn't accurately describe what you intend to project.[/quote]
Well yeah Geld. Just about everyone knows that Kriminal is WRONG, but Kriminal. He keeps avoiding the "FUN" definition, because it starts to prove that he doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. Anything that is a FACT that proves his argument WRONG, he avoids or tries to twist the words around in his favor. LMAO!! The whole thing is a BIG JOKE if you ask me. Still, I get a good laugh reading his long replies. He must keep a journal, cause he loves to write.
Originally posted by XanderZane Sorry, but MMORPG is the same as not all people liking skydiving, flying, rollercoasters, horror films, poetry, etc, etc..
Just because people like PvE, doesn't mean everyone will like PvP. Kriminal himself even said that they both are different do to the AI. Eventually everyone will want to try PvP because they will get bored with PvE and the challenge will become boring. Sorry, but I haven't gotten bored of it. Regular RPG's are nothing buy PvE and those games are some of the most successful on the market. There are a lot of people that just won't play PvP no matter how it's made. Plain and simple. That's the FACTS.
No feedtherich is right. PVE and PVP are both fun for the same reason, in both cases the person is going for respect or a feeling of self worth for their accomplishments. What I said was that the AI is different because it continue to be unpredictable to the player. That has nothing to do with the fact that both are fun for the same reason. If they are both fun for the same reason that means to a person they are the same thing at the very base of things. Its just that PVP has more potential to turn into a rotten apple to borrow feed's metaphor.
But the things which make pvp go rotten don't HAVE to be a part of pvp. If it did, then just as well people wouldn't be able to conversate without people getting hurt and angry all the time because its the same basic type of interaction. Someone would get mad EVERY single time another person said something funny and they lost the attention of the group. But people like conversation as long as they get some attention, and people would also like pvp if it were fair as well.
Single player games, and success have nothing to do with the argument. Single player games take months and months to create and are get boring easily much much faster than they are made. Most MMORPG dev dont even attempts to run a mmorpg like a single player game just for that reason, most of them have time sinks etc unique to mmorpgs to slow the player down to keep them paying from month to month.
Think of it this way? Do all single player games keep you continuously entertained? No (remember no multiplayer considered)... And they have not just one staff of developers, but many many developers to provide them.
Quote # 2 X Well yeah Geld. Just about everyone knows that Kriminal is WRONG, but Kriminal. He keeps avoiding the "FUN" definition, because it starts to prove that he doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. Anything that is a FACT that proves his argument WRONG, he avoids or tries to twist the words around in his favor. LMAO!! The whole thing is a BIG JOKE if you ask me. Still, I get a good laugh reading his long replies. He must keep a journal, cause he loves to write.
lol what makes you think even more people think I am wrong then right? I'm here because I like to figure things out and arguing with people is a good way to refine your arguments. You and others like you are here because you are very afraid you are wrong and are angry (as evidenced by the posts being more childlike insults then meaningful arguments). Anyone who agrees with me and doesn't like to do this kind of thing has no reason to stick around. If you look back through the thread you will see maybe even as many people saying they agree and then ducking out as "OMG WHO U THINK U R" types repeatedly posting nonsense. And most people who agree might not post at all...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Originally posted by Kriminal99 Think of it this way? Do all single player games keep you continuously entertained? No (remember no multiplayer considered)...
That's a big blanket statement to say "all single player games." That's like asking you "Do all PvP games keep you continuously entertained?" Which I am sure you would say no. So, can there be a single player game that can keep you continuously entertained? I'm sure there are people still continuously playing a card game of Solitare. So the answer is yes. If you want to go with a game that is just a computer game, then I would say some people are still continuously entertained with the Civilization games.
Once again, everything you are basing your arguments on are opinions. Why can't you just state "for a MMORPG to be continuously fun for me, it has to have PvP." Then there wouldn't be an argument.
I know that you have changed your argument to get people to confess that if PvP is done in a certain way (I'm not going to say a right way, because I don't believe there is a right or wrong way to do it) that they would like it. You are doing this by first getting them to admit that if they don't mind AI controlled objects (NPCs) that were unpredictable, that they shouldn't mind real players who can be unpredictable. In this case, why can't someone make the conclusion "that if you like going against players that are unpredictable, that you should like going against AI that is unpredictable." Therefore, PvP is not necessary anymore.
Originally posted by AlientThat's a big blanket statement to say "all single player games."
Once again, everything you are basing your arguments on are opinions. Why can't you just state "for a MMORPG to be continuously fun for me, it has to have PvP." Then there wouldn't be an argument. I know that you have changed your argument to get people to confess that if PvP is done in a certain way (I'm not going to say a right way, because I don't believe there is a right or wrong way to do it) that they would like it. You are doing this by first getting them to admit that if they don't mind AI controlled objects (NPCs) that were unpredictable, that they shouldn't mind real players who can be unpredictable. In this case, why can't someone make the conclusion "that if you like going against players that are unpredictable, that you should like going against AI that is unpredictable." Therefore, PvP is not necessary anymore.
No alient I meant do all single player games together keep you continuously entertained.
The argument is not opinion that is why I am not going to state it is an opinion... Thats why I can't do that.
There is nothing wrong NPC's that were unpredictable, except they are not possible at this point in time or any time soon. They not only have to make up for one person's unpredictability, but for ALL people in a game that you might randomly come into contact with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Originally posted by Kriminal99 No alient I meant do all single player games together keep you continuously entertained.
I still see that as a blanket statement that can never be true because of the word "all." This still wouldn't advance your argument because I'm sure not all PvP games together would keep you continuously entertained either.
I still would like to hear what PvP elements and structure you would like to see in game (another thread maybe). I have my own thoughts of what kind of PvP system I would like and would like to hear other people's thoughts.
I will apologize in advance if what I say here has been discussed previously, but I could not tolerate reading 28 pages and quit after 14 pages. I did read the first post, however.
Krimminal99 started this thread making an argument which leads to a conclusion that 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. All based on 8 premises (The edited version of the original post)
Implied in your argument is another premise that the long term net benefit of creating a PvP system which appeals to the customer base of a MMORPG is greater that the long term net benefit of creating PvE content. This premise, which if true, would suggest that your conclusion is right.
However, for a premise and logical argument to be true it must be supported by fact, none of which I have seen, unless it was in the 14 pages I did not read. You go on at length that a person must look at arguments logically and intellectually to come to a conclusion. A person can examine an argument based on premises, but if the premises are not supported by facts there is no basis to suggest the agreement is true.
Your argument fails because you provide no facts to support your argument. You rely on people believing your premises without facts to support them. Most people who have responded to your argument have used the facts of their own experience, anecdotal evidence, to challenge a premise within your argument and thus disagree with your conclusion. You have been short sighted to realize that their conclusions are different to yours because they dont agree with your premise(s). Some may not have articulated their reasoning to come to the conclusion in a lengthy argument, but assuming you have some intellect, you should been able to see this.
People are annoyed, to say the least, because your responses are, at times, belittling, pompous and rude. You have been intellectually dishonest be editing your original post to try and fill in the gaps in your argument to support your conclusion. If you are person who believes in logic and intellectual honesty you must admit that have been intellectually dishonest in this threat.
The debate will continue until some-one provides proof, not unsubstantiated logical reasoning, that the conclusion is true. Logic is worthless without facts to support the argument, and you have provided none.
Originally posted by Alient I still see that as a blanket statement that can never be true because of the word "all." This still wouldn't advance your argument because I'm sure not all PvP games together would keep you continuously entertained either.
I still would like to hear what PvP elements and structure you would like to see in game (another thread maybe). I have my own thoughts of what kind of PvP system I would like and would like to hear other people's thoughts.
Yes all pvp games definitely could Alient, its another person instead of just a predictable AI. Random people are always going to be able to challenge someone because the person looking for a challenge is also a person so they are always going to be another one just as good. Its this simple, how long do you think you can go around fighting mobs that were designed to let you win before you realize how stupid that is. Its like if your therapist told you to go around wearing a hat that said "superstar" on it.
Once again the pvp structure is irrelevant to this point. Unless you could prove that something necessary to pvp causes inherently stressful to some people, and thats impossible. The only thing necessary to pvp is some type of competition and everyone has no problem with at least one type of competition therefore neither competition or pvp are inherently bad to anyone.
Originally posted by Deli I will apologize in advance if what I say here has been discussed previously, but I could not tolerate reading 28 pages and quit after 14 pages. I did read the first post, however. Krimminal99 started this thread making an argument which leads to a conclusion that 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. All based on 8 premises (The edited version of the original post) Implied in your argument is another premise that the long term net benefit of creating a PvP system which appeals to the customer base of a MMORPG is greater that the long term net benefit of creating PvE content. This premise, which if true, would suggest that your conclusion is right. However, for a premise and logical argument to be true it must be supported by fact, none of which I have seen, unless it was in the 14 pages I did not read. You go on at length that a person must look at arguments logically and intellectually to come to a conclusion. A person can examine an argument based on premises, but if the premises are not supported by facts there is no basis to suggest the agreement is true. Your argument fails because you provide no facts to support your argument. You rely on people believing your premises without facts to support them. Most people who have responded to your argument have used the facts of their own experience, anecdotal evidence, to challenge a premise within your argument and thus disagree with your conclusion. You have been short sighted to realize that their conclusions are different to yours because they dont agree with your premise(s). Some may not have articulated their reasoning to come to the conclusion in a lengthy argument, but assuming you have some intellect, you should been able to see this. People are annoyed, to say the least, because your responses are, at times, belittling, pompous and rude. You have been intellectually dishonest be editing your original post to try and fill in the gaps in your argument to support your conclusion. If you are person who believes in logic and intellectual honesty you must admit that have been intellectually dishonest in this threat.
I don't think anyone expects anyone to read through all the stuff between the beginning and end, I was just saying that its annoying win people don't even read the first post in the thread before popping off about how mad the title makes them.
Anyways there are no implied premises in my argument. Where did you get that from? Noone arguing with me would accept such a premise anyways, that is what my conclusion is... Perhaps there is some kind of implied premise in my argument but that is not it. Maybe something along the lines of People play mmorpgs for fun or something...
The first problem I see in your post is that there is no such thing as a fact. Note that logic, specifically deductive reasoning simply says that if you accept a and if you accept b then c must be true. But it is dependent on people accepting a and b. This models the way people think.
In order to prove an argument to someone, you have to break down the argument into experiences that they have had. Fact means something that is undeniably true. Nothing is really undeniably true. If I wanted to I could doubt everything I see and know in the world other than my existance because I have to be here to doubt my existance. Maybe I am in a "matrix" in a different dimension with different laws of physics etc. Logic simply tells me that if the things I have seen are true, then other things must also be true.
My point is I only have to break things down into things that people agree on. If everyone has experienced the truth of my premises then that is all I need. Not to prove to someone that they are absolute "fact".
So lets just assume that you really mean that you don't agree with my premise. If thats the case either you are inexperienced in mmorpgs, I need to break them down more, I am wrong, or you are simply trying to look for some artificial way to debunk my argument. Obviously I think its the latter which is why I went on about all that. Because otherwise you likely would have picked out one or two premises which you have not seen yourself and I would see if they could be broken down more.
As to the other people here, I have read argument after argument which either A) has nothing to do with the argument, Is obviously false and in response to the proof of such, the person simply makes insults or a poll to try and sidestep the fact. C) Are arguments that seemed somewhat closer to a legitimate argument, but when broken down show that the person really has had the same experiences that logically lead to the debated premise. Why then did I not breakdown the premise again to meet future instances of such people?
Because no matter how I word the premises there is still going to be some people that do not understand what they are saying at first glance. If there is some way to break it down that would generally help the majority see what they are saying, then I would do it. But if some person is from another country and has a different definition for a term common to other english speakers, I am not going to change my argument to best suit that person rather than the majority of english speakers. Someone who knew nothing of mmorpgs could come and not have any clue what the argument is talking about. And people can pretend not to when they really do. Misunderstanding of the argument is not my fault and nothing can be done to completely stop it.
Aggressive acts are done out of fear. People are annoyed because they are afraid they are wrong, and for them being right is tied to their feeling of self worth. It has nothing to do with me... How could it when ultimately I am nothing more than information being transmitted to their brain? My responses take possibly a "belittling" tone when people act little or immature. I simply point out what they are doing. That makes them more mad because they know its true.. (well I guess I should say fear its true)
Oh brother not this again... lol Its "intellectually dishonest" to edit my argument for the better? How so? What does that even mean? All I am interested in is coming up with the right answer and figuring out more. If anyone else had gone through everything I did (including being me) they would figure out just the same thing. Many other people could with similar experiences. I am not so naive to claim some sort of ownership of my ideas. You hear this type of argument alot from people who depend on being seen as intelligent for self esteem rather than who just like to figure things out.
Most people agree with the premises, my rebukes are minimal compared to what people attack me with, who cares if I change my argument Im not trying to decieve anyone here...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Originally posted by Kriminal99 Once again the pvp structure is irrelevant to this point. Unless you could prove that something necessary to pvp causes inherently stressful to some people, and thats impossible. The only thing necessary to pvp is some type of competition and everyone has no problem with at least one type of competition therefore neither competition or pvp are inherently bad to anyone.
I didn't want to prove any points. I just wanted to know what kind of PvP system do you prefer or like? Personally, I don't like the way EQ and numerous other games have it. There's no game penalties or rewards. It's just personal achievement that doesn't affect the game world at all. I can play first person shooters for free doing that (which I do).
Originally posted by AlientI didn't want to prove any points. I just wanted to know what kind of PvP system do you prefer or like? Personally, I don't like the way EQ and numerous other games have it. There's no game penalties or rewards. It's just personal achievement that doesn't affect the game world at all. I can play first person shooters for free doing that (which I do).
Ok ok... I guess I would prefer one that would satisfy my argument so... Well lets see. First of all there is the problem of smack talking. In person in say a basketball game people don't talk unfriendly smack (they might do it just joking around) because there is a risk of a physical fight. In a video game there is nothing to stop them from doing this.
The possibility of the enemy talking smack if he beats you could raise the risk of the pvp match for some people really high. People's reaction to smack talking I don't think could be controlled signifigantly by the game. So it would have to be stopped some way I think... Maybe with a DAOC type system. Or maybe some way that the heat could be seriously turned up on someone if they really pissed someone off more that just the average bandit, a super effective bounty hunter system perhaps.
Maybe tone down the importance of levels from the average game. NOT too much because there has to be somewhere for the player to go. Make skill in whatever type of game it was and equipment more important. I think a system where a player could only advance from fighting/playing against other people, and where people advanced really quickly would be best. But then when they lost, they got set back pretty far. Maybe even permadeath or something. That way you would die but could get it all damn fast if you were good and lucky as far as the skill of who you ran into. Then maybe if you were lucky enough to last to the top you had a fairly decent advantage over other players, but could still easily fall if outnumbered. Ive always thought something like the fallout system would be perfect for this.
Lets see what else... Ah no level designations. You could still see the other persons equipment though. And also make damn sure people know what kinds of areas they are wondering into. Plenty of npc warnings or signs or whatever. A handicap system perhaps that gave people an a handicap based on their win/loss ratio. Can't think of anything else off the top of my head
All of this is just speculation really. If I was to make a pvp mmorpg I would just try things like this and change things that didn't work. Hopefully before that point I'm going to have more information to go on. I'd play it myself and get feedback from others to figure out more about what works and what doesn't and change things asap. Yes I program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
I can program too. And have been thinking about doing an isometric game to concentrate more on gameplay than graphics (and of course cut down the time of developing models, textures, etc). That's why I'm interested in other people's thoughts (mostly just people fed up with what's already out there) on what they would like to see. I wouldn't try to compromise between a carebear system and a PvP system.
I will agree with you that if a person agrees with your arguments that they should end up at your conclusion.
My comment about an implied premise is probably captured by your first premise and is, after re-reading your premise, capture by your statement that it is your belief that it is not cost effective to try and keep up on static content to keep players happy (I paraphrase).
I do disagree with this premise because for me this has not occurred. I am only a casual gamer and have only played for three years on a couple of games. Thus your argument fails, for me. It is not the truth for me that PvP is required and the most cost effective method to have a sustained level of fun.
As to my comment about facts, I agree there are not absolute truths. What I require for facts which are impartial sources of information that are not anecdotal and just personal experiences which you are relying on. (unless you are a gaming expert, in which I would have to defer to your expertise and ignore my views)
I believe, and this comes what I have read and seen, that most computer games companies are run by computer programmers and gamers and not by business people. A computer game is a product, like anything else, and a company needs to read and understand the consumer base to determine what is required. If your premises are what the majority and board gaming market requires, then yes, your conclusion is true. In which I am a minority. I think if a computer game company can find a way to attract new people and expand the market and people playing on-line games, then they will be very successful, this may or may not require PvP. This might mean attracting more casual players who cannot blast through the content and who may not desire PvP. It will not attract hardcore gamers, but if this is a small market segment, who cares. If ithe hardcore gamers are a big, profitable segment, then they must be addressed. I dont know the answer.
I will only believe your first premise when I hear from an industry expert that your premise is true because it contradicts my experiences.
Lastly, what you state is an opinion. You may have used an argument to reach a conclusion but the conclusion is based on premises which are based on beliefs which have been developed from experience. If you believe your premises are true, it is an opinion. If you have no opinion on your premises, then it is only an argument.
Prove, disprove the dictionary? What are you talking about geld? The dictionary does not claim to be some kind of psychological authourity when it comes to how it defines words. Thats why different dictionaries have different definitions...
AND geld you misunderstood my argument. Its not SOME people have similar emotional responses to the same emotional triggers. Its ALL people have the same emotional responses to SOME emotional triggers. That means saying "fun is subjective" does not contradict my argument. If this were not the case, some people would never be able to learn the definitions of "fun" "love" etc. as I had just pointed out. Thats why dictionaries define these terms with common experiences of them... Yet there is noone who is not able to learn these terms. You might need to take a second to think about this to realize that its really true.
An example of this is being loved. Am I talking about the emotion itself or a trigger that causes it? I'm talking about BOTH. Because there is a basic emotional trigger that ALWAYS causes this emotion in all people. Without it we wouldn't be able to communicate emotions to one another. People don't always feel loved at the same times. But everyone has the same emotion when they feel loved. When I say that you think of things like people expressing gratitude towards you respecting you for an accomplishment or one of another few. Those are basic things that are common to everyone.
The only place for different interpretation is after this. Maybe people have a different idea of an accomplishment. But there is only a FEW of these basic triggers. All experiences that cause any emotion at all are funneled into one of these few. That means if someone is doing something, there is only a FEW reasons why they might be doing it. And its easy to figure out what these basic triggers are and when they might come into play.
I don't say anything about people that play sports rather than mmorpgs.
So you say someone feels guilty for winning pvp. Ill grant that my argument requires a setback. Let me ask something though. Does this person feel guilty for having a nice car and people paying attention to him. Or for telling a funny joke. They all setback other people. Winning in a sport?
The difference between pvp and these situations is simple. He doesn't care if someone else tells a funny joke and people pay attention to that person for a minute, so he doesn't feel guilty for telling one himself. So if the game made it so that he no longer got mad when he dies in pvp, then he wouldn't feel guilty about winning. The golden rule is the basic trigger behind guilt.
People that play mmorpgs can only experience a couple basic triggers that might be considered fun. Realization, love/respect, fight or flight. The reason for participating in pvp is the exact same for the reason for participating in pve. love/respect for an accomplishment.
I might grant you that I need to add a premise for guilt (which I just did) and any other bad emotion which I might have left out (Can't think of any other, Anger is in the argument)
I don't misunderstand your argument. I simply have corrected it. Some people do have similar emotional responses to the same trigger. How can you even deny this fact? Second there is not a single emotional trigger in the world that cannot cause different responses. I ask you to try to come up with one example of a trigger that always generates the same emotional response in all human beings. I can always find exceptions. In an earlier post you tried to compare a physical reaction such as pain to an emotional one. As I said these cannot be compared. If you hurt someone physically. You may have some idea of what their physical reaction will be. But if you don't know the person, you won't know what their emotional reaction will be. They may get very angry, and attempt to hurt you back. They may be afraid of you, if they are that type of person that shys away from conflict. They may become distraught. There are also other possibilities.
One can never determine what a humans actions will be without first knowing their past behaviour, since a person actions are usually directly linked to their emotions. You must understand what a person is feeling emotionally before you can truly understand their actions.
I agree it is easier to work the other way. As in watching their reactions and then trying to determine the trigger that caused the reaction. This of course doesn't help your argument very much because it's obviously very subjective. You can't study one persons reaction to a trigger and assume all other people will have the same reaction. This goes against the very fundamentals of psychology.
Ah, your first example of an emotion, Love. That is a touchy subject actually. It includes many different triggers. These triggers include both physical traits (obviously) and also other emotions can lead to Love. You are arguing that the feeling itself is the same? well thats questionable too, are you certain that when someone else feels love it feels the same as when you do? But the main point is the trigger that caused Love. As that is what your argument is really all about. As you claim PVP is a trigger to fun in all human beings.
Why then would a psychologist even ask any questions at all? If they could accurately predict the responses to each of the questions (or tests) there really would be no need.
Now for the guilt issue. First of all, how can you assossiate a death in PVP with the telling of a joke or collecting the best sports car? SOME people have an emotional attachment to their characters in an mmorpg. Possibly similar to the feelings they may have over a pet. The death of said character will generate definate negative emotions in a person like this. This may also include guilt over killing other players. Perhaps the sports car situation relates, if you actually felt emotions for your car, more so than just pride over how expensive it is. Then someone else comes along and dents all the panels with a sledgehammer, so that their car may look nicer. That is similar don't you think? Simply owning a better sports car is only comparable to owning a better character. Also the joke example, you would have to be in the process of telling the joke when someone interrupts with a funny punchline, which ruins your punchline. That is comparable to pvp.
I don't see how the perfect pvp system is possible. It would have to eliminate the possibility of negative emotions towards it, while at the same time creating substantial setbacks. The perfect PVP system would make sure that 2 combatants are always at equal level, so that only player skill is involved in the victory, while at the same time ensure that players who have worked hard to train up their characters be able to defeat weaker characters. This is the only system that will cater to ALL current mmorpg players.
"The reason for participating in pvp is the exact same for the reason for participating in pve. love/respect for an accomplishment." This statement is again a very subjective one. You are certainly correct, many people do have only that goal in mind when participating in PVE or PVP. But the two are not the same, as you said yourself. In PVE you know the opponent doesn't suffer from emotion, so it's more likely you will have no negative emotions in killing them. The reasons for entering into PVE include respect, trust, accomplishment, necessity, pride, greed, there are more. PVP is different. When you know you are dealing with another emotional person the possibilty of negative emotions dramatically increase. You are dealing with human nature, in it's fullest unpredictability.
In PVE if you die, you experience negative feelings in general, if you die in PVP you experience negative feelings directed at another player. Do you not see the difference?
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
OMG, people are still talking about this crap? for some people they need PvP in a MMORPG for it to be fun, others dont need it, there, see, its pretty simple.
[quote]Kriminal said: Think of it this way? Do all single player games keep you continuously entertained? No (remember no multiplayer considered)... And they have not just one staff of developers, but many many developers to provide them. [/quote]
No, but neither does all MMORPG's or PvP games, no matter how it's made. So your point is pretty mute. There are definitely many more single player games that could keep me continuously entertain then MMO games. Games like Tetris, Tempest, SSX, EA Sports games, Links 2001 and many others are continuously entertaining to me, EVERY TIME I play. I'm talking about playing by myself too, not multiplayer. I've been playing Links 2001 since, well... 2001. Everytime I play it, it's fun. Of course not ALL single player games will keep you entertain and same goes for MMO games. I'm no longer entertained playing Planetside, and haven't been eager to play it since Oct 2003.
[quote]Kriminal said: lol what makes you think even more people think I am wrong then right? I'm here because I like to figure things out and arguing with people is a good way to refine your arguments. You and others like you are here because you are very afraid you are wrong and are angry (as evidenced by the posts being more childlike insults then meaningful arguments). Anyone who agrees with me and doesn't like to do this kind of thing has no reason to stick around. If you look back through the thread you will see maybe even as many people saying they agree and then ducking out as "OMG WHO U THINK U R" types repeatedly posting nonsense. And most people who agree might not post at all... [/quote]
Hhhmm.. have you been reading this thread? There may have been two or three people who agreed with you out of about 50. We're not afraid to be wrong, but I think you are. Many people here have posted concrete facts, but you continually brush them aside and then come up with your own ideas as to why they are wrong. Even if they are RIGHT you disprove their theory. That's why no one is taking you seriously. The people who agreed with you and left were the smart ones. They said what they had to say and vanished because your arguement is pretty pointless. Your argument that PvP needs to be in every MMO game for it to survive the long term and be successful has been snuffed out long ago.
[quote]Alient said: Once again, everything you are basing your arguments on are opinions. Why can't you just state "for a MMORPG to be continuously fun for me, it has to have PvP." Then there wouldn't be any argument.[/quote]
If he had said this, I could totally agree with him, because it would be HIS opinion only. I could understand him wanting PvP in every MMO game. I could understand many people wanting this, but not EVERYONE. I'm sure many developers believe that it's not totally necessary for a MMO game to be a hit.
[quote]Kriminal said: No Alient I meant do all single player games together keep you continuously entertained.
The argument is not opinion that is why I am not going to state it is an opinion... Thats why I can't do that.
There is nothing wrong NPC's that were unpredictable, except they are not possible at this point in time or any time soon. They not only have to make up for one person's unpredictability, but for ALL people in a game that you might randomly come into contact with. [/quote]
Of course ALL single playing games don't keep you entertained. Neither does all PvP games, even if they followed your argumental standards on what a PvP game should be. Well... the argument IS an OPINION because you have no FACTS to prove your case. That's pretty much WHY it's just your OPINION. This is just your theory on how things should be. None of your arguments are in place and none of them have been proven to be FACT. Now have they?
[quote]Deli Said: However, for a premise and logical argument to be true it must be supported by fact, none of which I have seen, unless it was in the 14 pages I did not read. You go on at length that a person must look at arguments logically and intellectually to come to a conclusion. A person can examine an argument based on premises, but if the premises are not supported by facts there is no basis to suggest the agreement is true.[/quote]
OMG Someone out there is reading my mind. LOL!! Yeah Deli I agree with you totally. Logical or illogical, without facts to prove your argument it's pretty much just an opinion. Whether you believe that or not, it's a FACT. LOL!!
[quote]Kriminal Said: Yes all pvp games definitely could Alient, its another person instead of just a predictable AI. Random people are always going to be able to challenge someone because the person looking for a challenge is also a person so they are always going to be another one just as good. Its this simple, how long do you think you can go around fighting mobs that were designed to let you win before you realize how stupid that is. Its like if your therapist told you to go around wearing a hat that said "superstar" on it. [/quote]
Cough.. Planetside..cough!! LOL!! I'm no longer entertained with this game. Actually about 40,000 subscribers have losed interest and left as well? There are NO PvE in this game whatsoever. Question for you. If someone who loves PvP played Planetside (or your version of PvP), but sucked so bad at it that it was more frustrating then entertaining and quit, would you still think that ALL PvP would be continuously entertaining? LOL!! You're statement should read, "PvP is continuously entertaining for some people (like Kriminal), but not ALL". That would actually be a FACT and a game like Planetside would be the proof. Makes sense., huh?
[quote]Kriminal Said: Once again the pvp structure is irrelevant to this point. Unless you could prove that something necessary to pvp causes inherently stressful to some people, and thats impossible. The only thing necessary to pvp is some type of competition and everyone has no problem with at least one type of competition therefore neither competition or pvp are inherently bad to anyone. [/quote]
Kriminal99, does your argument take into account that the Internet creates an autistic type state in all participating members by removing all the physical, identifying and tonal cues from standard conversation? That in this limited state of interaction, even a minor transgressions in the social dynamic or norm become intensified and blown out of proportion in the mind of many of the participants? That very few people on the Internet, no matter how socially healthy the may be RL, are exhibiting signs of gross dementia and disassociative disorders, due to the lack of persistent consequences for their actions?
I feel that if you root so much of your argument in sociology and psychology you must design your methodology on that of working with a large group of autistic and disassociative people. This would mean that any real world model, which by its nature is not designed for such a large divergent mindset, becomes invalid when applied to the Internet and Internet communication or Internet game play.
While I would not dispute that in a healthy population the need for random reward failure becomes necessary for enjoyment. In a population that is not healthy, such randomness is seen as being not random, therefor becomes unnecessarily stressful on many.
Also I am forced to admit, I did not read to page thirty in this tread but I did read your base theory and much of the couture theory.
From the point of view of a gaming company trying to cash in on an established money making market, your arguement holds. I.E. it is easiest for them to make money over the short term by providing PvP based games as that is what a majority of the potential customer base wants.
However, you can't apply that to each and every individual that may play a game. I, like some others in this thread, hate PvP in all its forms. Therefore, for me, there is no fun in it and it is not an aspect I look for in a game.
I look for the content that is so much harder to program into a game. he quests and challenges and team work scenarios are the things that I like and give me fun.
Your arguemens hold true given particular starting parameters and goals, when looking at a broad population, but can't be applied to any given individual. I.E. you might be able to say that 80% of the population would react in a given way to a given stimulous but you can't then pick out any given individual in that population and positively say which way they will react.
Also, its the risk takers that go agaisnt current perceived wisdoms that come up with the next great idea.
30 pages jeez i got to page 7....first of all skraight up kriminal and tmcc...pvp is lame if theres no reason for it beside "I PWNZ J00, I AM THE 1337 h4xx0r", if you want real pvp go play AO, thats a game with a real reason to pvp...not just i pwnz j00, players take part in a 2 side conflict...imo the only fun i get out of pvp is mass combat, arena pvp is just as boring as pve (maybe even more, since all pvpers are cookiecutter, just following some thread in some forum somewhere)
and BTW logic does not apply to emotion, a computer can be nothing more then perfect, it cant aspire to anything higher
Originally posted by geldI don't misunderstand your argument. I simply have corrected it. Some people do have similar emotional responses to the same trigger. How can you even deny this fact? Second there is not a single emotional trigger in the world that cannot cause different responses. I ask you to try to come up with one example of a trigger that always generates the same emotional response in all human beings. I can always find exceptions. In an earlier post you tried to compare a physical reaction such as pain to an emotional one. As I said these cannot be compared. If you hurt someone physically. You may have some idea of what their physical reaction will be. But if you don't know the person, you won't know what their emotional reaction will be. They may get very angry, and attempt to hurt you back. They may be afraid of you, if they are that type of person that shys away from conflict. They may become distraught. There are also other possibilities. One can never determine what a humans actions will be without first knowing their past behaviour, since a person actions are usually directly linked to their emotions. You must understand what a person is feeling emotionally before you can truly understand their actions. I agree it is easier to work the other way. As in watching their reactions and then trying to determine the trigger that caused the reaction. This of course doesn't help your argument very much because it's obviously very subjective. You can't study one persons reaction to a trigger and assume all other people will have the same reaction. This goes against the very fundamentals of psychology. Ah, your first example of an emotion, Love. That is a touchy subject actually. It includes many different triggers. These triggers include both physical traits (obviously) and also other emotions can lead to Love. You are arguing that the feeling itself is the same? well thats questionable too, are you certain that when someone else feels love it feels the same as when you do? But the main point is the trigger that caused Love. As that is what your argument is really all about. As you claim PVP is a trigger to fun in all human beings. Why then would a psychologist even ask any questions at all? If they could accurately predict the responses to each of the questions (or tests) there really would be no need. Now for the guilt issue. First of all, how can you assossiate a death in PVP with the telling of a joke or collecting the best sports car? SOME people have an emotional attachment to their characters in an mmorpg. Possibly similar to the feelings they may have over a pet. The death of said character will generate definate negative emotions in a person like this. This may also include guilt over killing other players. Perhaps the sports car situation relates, if you actually felt emotions for your car, more so than just pride over how expensive it is. Then someone else comes along and dents all the panels with a sledgehammer, so that their car may look nicer. That is similar don't you think? Simply owning a better sports car is only comparable to owning a better character. Also the joke example, you would have to be in the process of telling the joke when someone interrupts with a funny punchline, which ruins your punchline. That is comparable to pvp. I don't see how the perfect pvp system is possible. It would have to eliminate the possibility of negative emotions towards it, while at the same time creating substantial setbacks. The perfect PVP system would make sure that 2 combatants are always at equal level, so that only player skill is involved in the victory, while at the same time ensure that players who have worked hard to train up their characters be able to defeat weaker characters. This is the only system that will cater to ALL current mmorpg players. "The reason for participating in pvp is the exact same for the reason for participating in pve. love/respect for an accomplishment." This statement is again a very subjective one. You are certainly correct, many people do have only that goal in mind when participating in PVE or PVP. But the two are not the same, as you said yourself. In PVE you know the opponent doesn't suffer from emotion, so it's more likely you will have no negative emotions in killing them. The reasons for entering into PVE include respect, trust, accomplishment, necessity, pride, greed, there are more. PVP is different. When you know you are dealing with another emotional person the possibilty of negative emotions dramatically increase. You are dealing with human nature, in it's fullest unpredictability. In PVE if you die, you experience negative feelings in general, if you die in PVP you experience negative feelings directed at another player. Do you not see the difference?
The base emotional triggers I am talking about are "feeling loved", "seeing someone in a bad situation you have experienced" and stuff like that. These are not absolute physical occurences but they are not purely subjective either. Its more like physical occurences are put through some kind of function that determines if they are a trigger for any emotion, and the function that all people start out with is the same. Then as their life goes on the function changes based on their experiences. Yes there are probably physical occurences which HAVE to produce the same reaction in all people, such as being genuinely smiled at. Since smiling is a reaction to a good emotion caused by the physiology of a person it is pretty much impossible for someone to not see being genuinely smiled at as a good thing. Hypothetically you might be able to completely isolate someone and not give them access to any reflective surfaces and then try and train them that smiling was bad, but whats the point... As long as someone lives in society then smiling is probably going to be a trigger for a good emotion for them.
Or it might be that smiling being a trigger for a good emotion is inherent knowledge. There has to be at least one preprogrammed physical trigger for each emotion. Obviously babies feel emotion and also there has to be somewhere to start the chain. If these starting triggers were different people would not be able to communicate emotion to one another, people would be to different to have any kind of order in the world, and it would be obvious that this was the case. The only thing that would really make sense is if the initial physical trigger for each emotion was something which the body already knew had to be the sign that a human being was feeling the good emotion. As long as what it came into contact with was a member of its own species then it would know it was happy, and as long as it was looking (could also be inherent knowledge) into the babies eyes while smiling the baby would know that it was happy because of the baby.
From there the person maybe smiles while saying something, and that thing then becomes a seperate way to feel loved through relation. And then actions such as figuring something out can become related etc.
ANyways there is only one long term motivator and that is the feeling of love/respect. Fun is sometimes also used to describe realization or the effects of chemical drugs, but these things won't cause someone to continually play a video game. So if someone is playing a video game then we know it has to be for a feeling of love/respect, and it's easy to tell what things are going to cause this feeling and what things aren't.... -to be cont
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Richard J. Cox "There were much of the beautiful, much of the wanton, much of the bizarre, something of the terrible, and not a little of that which might have excited disgust."
It was me that suggested that this post may have been deleted....I only thought this because it was no longer listed in the most active post folder....I was then educated by other staff members...Xaldor
Richard J. Cox "There were much of the beautiful, much of the wanton, much of the bizarre, something of the terrible, and not a little of that which might have excited disgust."
Comments
Sorry, but MMORPG is the same as not all people liking skydiving, flying, rollercoasters, horror films, poetry, etc, etc..
Just because people like PvE, doesn't mean everyone will like PvP. Kriminal himself even said that they both are different do to the AI. Eventually everyone will want to try PvP because they will get bored with PvE and the challenge will become boring. Sorry, but I haven't gotten bored of it. Regular RPG's are nothing buy PvE and those games are some of the most successful on the market. There are a lot of people that just won't play PvP no matter how it's made. Plain and simple. That's the FACTS.
Xander
Xander
Xander
First off, you have not disproven the dictionary definition of fun, really you have reinforced it. Of course the word has different meanings because of it's subjective nature. You actually state your definition of fun, finally. Which is not actually anyone else view of fun at all. You are talking about the emotional triggers which cause the reaction of fun in ANY human being. The reason I am catching you out for using the wrong word is because it is what many of the people who responded to you have been talking about. But you always respond by stating they don't understand your definition of fun. They were actually not wrong in their posts, you simply were using the wrong word, the word fun doesn't accurately describe what you intend to project.[/quote]
Well yeah Geld. Just about everyone knows that Kriminal is WRONG, but Kriminal. He keeps avoiding the "FUN" definition, because it starts to prove that he doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. Anything that is a FACT that proves his argument WRONG, he avoids or tries to twist the words around in his favor. LMAO!! The whole thing is a BIG JOKE if you ask me. Still, I get a good laugh reading his long replies. He must keep a journal, cause he loves to write.
Xander
Xander
Just because people like PvE, doesn't mean everyone will like PvP. Kriminal himself even said that they both are different do to the AI. Eventually everyone will want to try PvP because they will get bored with PvE and the challenge will become boring. Sorry, but I haven't gotten bored of it. Regular RPG's are nothing buy PvE and those games are some of the most successful on the market. There are a lot of people that just won't play PvP no matter how it's made. Plain and simple. That's the FACTS.
No feedtherich is right. PVE and PVP are both fun for the same reason, in both cases the person is going for respect or a feeling of self worth for their accomplishments. What I said was that the AI is different because it continue to be unpredictable to the player. That has nothing to do with the fact that both are fun for the same reason. If they are both fun for the same reason that means to a person they are the same thing at the very base of things. Its just that PVP has more potential to turn into a rotten apple to borrow feed's metaphor.
But the things which make pvp go rotten don't HAVE to be a part of pvp. If it did, then just as well people wouldn't be able to conversate without people getting hurt and angry all the time because its the same basic type of interaction. Someone would get mad EVERY single time another person said something funny and they lost the attention of the group. But people like conversation as long as they get some attention, and people would also like pvp if it were fair as well.
Single player games, and success have nothing to do with the argument. Single player games take months and months to create and are get boring easily much much faster than they are made. Most MMORPG dev dont even attempts to run a mmorpg like a single player game just for that reason, most of them have time sinks etc unique to mmorpgs to slow the player down to keep them paying from month to month.
Think of it this way? Do all single player games keep you continuously entertained? No (remember no multiplayer considered)... And they have not just one staff of developers, but many many developers to provide them.
Quote # 2 X Well yeah Geld. Just about everyone knows that Kriminal is WRONG, but Kriminal. He keeps avoiding the "FUN" definition, because it starts to prove that he doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. Anything that is a FACT that proves his argument WRONG, he avoids or tries to twist the words around in his favor. LMAO!! The whole thing is a BIG JOKE if you ask me. Still, I get a good laugh reading his long replies. He must keep a journal, cause he loves to write.
lol what makes you think even more people think I am wrong then right? I'm here because I like to figure things out and arguing with people is a good way to refine your arguments. You and others like you are here because you are very afraid you are wrong and are angry (as evidenced by the posts being more childlike insults then meaningful arguments). Anyone who agrees with me and doesn't like to do this kind of thing has no reason to stick around. If you look back through the thread you will see maybe even as many people saying they agree and then ducking out as "OMG WHO U THINK U R" types repeatedly posting nonsense. And most people who agree might not post at all...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Once again, everything you are basing your arguments on are opinions. Why can't you just state "for a MMORPG to be continuously fun for me, it has to have PvP." Then there wouldn't be an argument.
I know that you have changed your argument to get people to confess that if PvP is done in a certain way (I'm not going to say a right way, because I don't believe there is a right or wrong way to do it) that they would like it. You are doing this by first getting them to admit that if they don't mind AI controlled objects (NPCs) that were unpredictable, that they shouldn't mind real players who can be unpredictable. In this case, why can't someone make the conclusion "that if you like going against players that are unpredictable, that you should like going against AI that is unpredictable." Therefore, PvP is not necessary anymore.
No alient I meant do all single player games together keep you continuously entertained.
The argument is not opinion that is why I am not going to state it is an opinion... Thats why I can't do that.
There is nothing wrong NPC's that were unpredictable, except they are not possible at this point in time or any time soon. They not only have to make up for one person's unpredictability, but for ALL people in a game that you might randomly come into contact with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
I still would like to hear what PvP elements and structure you would like to see in game (another thread maybe). I have my own thoughts of what kind of PvP system I would like and would like to hear other people's thoughts.
I will apologize in advance if what I say here has been discussed previously, but I could not tolerate reading 28 pages and quit after 14 pages. I did read the first post, however.
Krimminal99 started this thread making an argument which leads to a conclusion that 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. All based on 8 premises (The edited version of the original post)
Implied in your argument is another premise that the long term net benefit of creating a PvP system which appeals to the customer base of a MMORPG is greater that the long term net benefit of creating PvE content. This premise, which if true, would suggest that your conclusion is right.
However, for a premise and logical argument to be true it must be supported by fact, none of which I have seen, unless it was in the 14 pages I did not read. You go on at length that a person must look at arguments logically and intellectually to come to a conclusion. A person can examine an argument based on premises, but if the premises are not supported by facts there is no basis to suggest the agreement is true.
Your argument fails because you provide no facts to support your argument. You rely on people believing your premises without facts to support them. Most people who have responded to your argument have used the facts of their own experience, anecdotal evidence, to challenge a premise within your argument and thus disagree with your conclusion. You have been short sighted to realize that their conclusions are different to yours because they dont agree with your premise(s). Some may not have articulated their reasoning to come to the conclusion in a lengthy argument, but assuming you have some intellect, you should been able to see this.
People are annoyed, to say the least, because your responses are, at times, belittling, pompous and rude. You have been intellectually dishonest be editing your original post to try and fill in the gaps in your argument to support your conclusion. If you are person who believes in logic and intellectual honesty you must admit that have been intellectually dishonest in this threat.
The debate will continue until some-one provides proof, not unsubstantiated logical reasoning, that the conclusion is true. Logic is worthless without facts to support the argument, and you have provided none.
Yes all pvp games definitely could Alient, its another person instead of just a predictable AI. Random people are always going to be able to challenge someone because the person looking for a challenge is also a person so they are always going to be another one just as good. Its this simple, how long do you think you can go around fighting mobs that were designed to let you win before you realize how stupid that is. Its like if your therapist told you to go around wearing a hat that said "superstar" on it.
Once again the pvp structure is irrelevant to this point. Unless you could prove that something necessary to pvp causes inherently stressful to some people, and thats impossible. The only thing necessary to pvp is some type of competition and everyone has no problem with at least one type of competition therefore neither competition or pvp are inherently bad to anyone.
I don't think anyone expects anyone to read through all the stuff between the beginning and end, I was just saying that its annoying win people don't even read the first post in the thread before popping off about how mad the title makes them.
Anyways there are no implied premises in my argument. Where did you get that from? Noone arguing with me would accept such a premise anyways, that is what my conclusion is... Perhaps there is some kind of implied premise in my argument but that is not it. Maybe something along the lines of People play mmorpgs for fun or something...
The first problem I see in your post is that there is no such thing as a fact. Note that logic, specifically deductive reasoning simply says that if you accept a and if you accept b then c must be true. But it is dependent on people accepting a and b. This models the way people think.
In order to prove an argument to someone, you have to break down the argument into experiences that they have had. Fact means something that is undeniably true. Nothing is really undeniably true. If I wanted to I could doubt everything I see and know in the world other than my existance because I have to be here to doubt my existance. Maybe I am in a "matrix" in a different dimension with different laws of physics etc. Logic simply tells me that if the things I have seen are true, then other things must also be true.
My point is I only have to break things down into things that people agree on. If everyone has experienced the truth of my premises then that is all I need. Not to prove to someone that they are absolute "fact".
So lets just assume that you really mean that you don't agree with my premise. If thats the case either you are inexperienced in mmorpgs, I need to break them down more, I am wrong, or you are simply trying to look for some artificial way to debunk my argument. Obviously I think its the latter which is why I went on about all that. Because otherwise you likely would have picked out one or two premises which you have not seen yourself and I would see if they could be broken down more.
As to the other people here, I have read argument after argument which either A) has nothing to do with the argument,
Is obviously false and in response to the proof of such, the person simply makes insults or a poll to try and sidestep the fact. C) Are arguments that seemed somewhat closer to a legitimate argument, but when broken down show that the person really has had the same experiences that logically lead to the debated premise. Why then did I not breakdown the premise again to meet future instances of such people?
Because no matter how I word the premises there is still going to be some people that do not understand what they are saying at first glance. If there is some way to break it down that would generally help the majority see what they are saying, then I would do it. But if some person is from another country and has a different definition for a term common to other english speakers, I am not going to change my argument to best suit that person rather than the majority of english speakers. Someone who knew nothing of mmorpgs could come and not have any clue what the argument is talking about. And people can pretend not to when they really do. Misunderstanding of the argument is not my fault and nothing can be done to completely stop it.
Aggressive acts are done out of fear. People are annoyed because they are afraid they are wrong, and for them being right is tied to their feeling of self worth. It has nothing to do with me... How could it when ultimately I am nothing more than information being transmitted to their brain? My responses take possibly a "belittling" tone when people act little or immature. I simply point out what they are doing. That makes them more mad because they know its true.. (well I guess I should say fear its true)
Oh brother not this again... lol Its "intellectually dishonest" to edit my argument for the better? How so? What does that even mean? All I am interested in is coming up with the right answer and figuring out more. If anyone else had gone through everything I did (including being me) they would figure out just the same thing. Many other people could with similar experiences. I am not so naive to claim some sort of ownership of my ideas. You hear this type of argument alot from people who depend on being seen as intelligent for self esteem rather than who just like to figure things out.
Most people agree with the premises, my rebukes are minimal compared to what people attack me with, who cares if I change my argument Im not trying to decieve anyone here...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Ok ok... I guess I would prefer one that would satisfy my argument so... Well lets see. First of all there is the problem of smack talking. In person in say a basketball game people don't talk unfriendly smack (they might do it just joking around) because there is a risk of a physical fight. In a video game there is nothing to stop them from doing this.
The possibility of the enemy talking smack if he beats you could raise the risk of the pvp match for some people really high. People's reaction to smack talking I don't think could be controlled signifigantly by the game. So it would have to be stopped some way I think... Maybe with a DAOC type system. Or maybe some way that the heat could be seriously turned up on someone if they really pissed someone off more that just the average bandit, a super effective bounty hunter system perhaps.
Maybe tone down the importance of levels from the average game. NOT too much because there has to be somewhere for the player to go. Make skill in whatever type of game it was and equipment more important. I think a system where a player could only advance from fighting/playing against other people, and where people advanced really quickly would be best. But then when they lost, they got set back pretty far. Maybe even permadeath or something. That way you would die but could get it all damn fast if you were good and lucky as far as the skill of who you ran into. Then maybe if you were lucky enough to last to the top you had a fairly decent advantage over other players, but could still easily fall if outnumbered. Ive always thought something like the fallout system would be perfect for this.
Lets see what else... Ah no level designations. You could still see the other persons equipment though. And also make damn sure people know what kinds of areas they are wondering into. Plenty of npc warnings or signs or whatever. A handicap system perhaps that gave people an a handicap based on their win/loss ratio. Can't think of anything else off the top of my head
All of this is just speculation really. If I was to make a pvp mmorpg I would just try things like this and change things that didn't work. Hopefully before that point I'm going to have more information to go on. I'd play it myself and get feedback from others to figure out more about what works and what doesn't and change things asap. Yes I program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Kriminal99
Where to begin?
I will agree with you that if a person agrees with your arguments that they should end up at your conclusion.
My comment about an implied premise is probably captured by your first premise and is, after re-reading your premise, capture by your statement that it is your belief that it is not cost effective to try and keep up on static content to keep players happy (I paraphrase).
I do disagree with this premise because for me this has not occurred. I am only a casual gamer and have only played for three years on a couple of games. Thus your argument fails, for me. It is not the truth for me that PvP is required and the most cost effective method to have a sustained level of fun.
As to my comment about facts, I agree there are not absolute truths. What I require for facts which are impartial sources of information that are not anecdotal and just personal experiences which you are relying on. (unless you are a gaming expert, in which I would have to defer to your expertise and ignore my views)
I believe, and this comes what I have read and seen, that most computer games companies are run by computer programmers and gamers and not by business people. A computer game is a product, like anything else, and a company needs to read and understand the consumer base to determine what is required. If your premises are what the majority and board gaming market requires, then yes, your conclusion is true. In which I am a minority. I think if a computer game company can find a way to attract new people and expand the market and people playing on-line games, then they will be very successful, this may or may not require PvP. This might mean attracting more casual players who cannot blast through the content and who may not desire PvP. It will not attract hardcore gamers, but if this is a small market segment, who cares. If ithe hardcore gamers are a big, profitable segment, then they must be addressed. I dont know the answer.
I will only believe your first premise when I hear from an industry expert that your premise is true because it contradicts my experiences.
Lastly, what you state is an opinion. You may have used an argument to reach a conclusion but the conclusion is based on premises which are based on beliefs which have been developed from experience. If you believe your premises are true, it is an opinion. If you have no opinion on your premises, then it is only an argument.
Prove, disprove the dictionary? What are you talking about geld? The dictionary does not claim to be some kind of psychological authourity when it comes to how it defines words. Thats why different dictionaries have different definitions...
AND geld you misunderstood my argument. Its not SOME people have similar emotional responses to the same emotional triggers. Its ALL people have the same emotional responses to SOME emotional triggers. That means saying "fun is subjective" does not contradict my argument. If this were not the case, some people would never be able to learn the definitions of "fun" "love" etc. as I had just pointed out. Thats why dictionaries define these terms with common experiences of them... Yet there is noone who is not able to learn these terms. You might need to take a second to think about this to realize that its really true.
An example of this is being loved. Am I talking about the emotion itself or a trigger that causes it? I'm talking about BOTH. Because there is a basic emotional trigger that ALWAYS causes this emotion in all people. Without it we wouldn't be able to communicate emotions to one another. People don't always feel loved at the same times. But everyone has the same emotion when they feel loved. When I say that you think of things like people expressing gratitude towards you respecting you for an accomplishment or one of another few. Those are basic things that are common to everyone.
The only place for different interpretation is after this. Maybe people have a different idea of an accomplishment. But there is only a FEW of these basic triggers. All experiences that cause any emotion at all are funneled into one of these few. That means if someone is doing something, there is only a FEW reasons why they might be doing it. And its easy to figure out what these basic triggers are and when they might come into play.
I don't say anything about people that play sports rather than mmorpgs.
So you say someone feels guilty for winning pvp. Ill grant that my argument requires a setback. Let me ask something though. Does this person feel guilty for having a nice car and people paying attention to him. Or for telling a funny joke. They all setback other people. Winning in a sport?
The difference between pvp and these situations is simple. He doesn't care if someone else tells a funny joke and people pay attention to that person for a minute, so he doesn't feel guilty for telling one himself. So if the game made it so that he no longer got mad when he dies in pvp, then he wouldn't feel guilty about winning. The golden rule is the basic trigger behind guilt.
People that play mmorpgs can only experience a couple basic triggers that might be considered fun. Realization, love/respect, fight or flight. The reason for participating in pvp is the exact same for the reason for participating in pve. love/respect for an accomplishment.
I might grant you that I need to add a premise for guilt (which I just did) and any other bad emotion which I might have left out (Can't think of any other, Anger is in the argument)
I don't misunderstand your argument. I simply have corrected it. Some people do have similar emotional responses to the same trigger. How can you even deny this fact? Second there is not a single emotional trigger in the world that cannot cause different responses. I ask you to try to come up with one example of a trigger that always generates the same emotional response in all human beings. I can always find exceptions. In an earlier post you tried to compare a physical reaction such as pain to an emotional one. As I said these cannot be compared. If you hurt someone physically. You may have some idea of what their physical reaction will be. But if you don't know the person, you won't know what their emotional reaction will be. They may get very angry, and attempt to hurt you back. They may be afraid of you, if they are that type of person that shys away from conflict. They may become distraught. There are also other possibilities.
One can never determine what a humans actions will be without first knowing their past behaviour, since a person actions are usually directly linked to their emotions. You must understand what a person is feeling emotionally before you can truly understand their actions.
I agree it is easier to work the other way. As in watching their reactions and then trying to determine the trigger that caused the reaction. This of course doesn't help your argument very much because it's obviously very subjective. You can't study one persons reaction to a trigger and assume all other people will have the same reaction. This goes against the very fundamentals of psychology.
Ah, your first example of an emotion, Love. That is a touchy subject actually. It includes many different triggers. These triggers include both physical traits (obviously) and also other emotions can lead to Love. You are arguing that the feeling itself is the same? well thats questionable too, are you certain that when someone else feels love it feels the same as when you do? But the main point is the trigger that caused Love. As that is what your argument is really all about. As you claim PVP is a trigger to fun in all human beings.
Why then would a psychologist even ask any questions at all? If they could accurately predict the responses to each of the questions (or tests) there really would be no need.
Now for the guilt issue. First of all, how can you assossiate a death in PVP with the telling of a joke or collecting the best sports car? SOME people have an emotional attachment to their characters in an mmorpg. Possibly similar to the feelings they may have over a pet. The death of said character will generate definate negative emotions in a person like this. This may also include guilt over killing other players. Perhaps the sports car situation relates, if you actually felt emotions for your car, more so than just pride over how expensive it is. Then someone else comes along and dents all the panels with a sledgehammer, so that their car may look nicer. That is similar don't you think? Simply owning a better sports car is only comparable to owning a better character. Also the joke example, you would have to be in the process of telling the joke when someone interrupts with a funny punchline, which ruins your punchline. That is comparable to pvp.
I don't see how the perfect pvp system is possible. It would have to eliminate the possibility of negative emotions towards it, while at the same time creating substantial setbacks. The perfect PVP system would make sure that 2 combatants are always at equal level, so that only player skill is involved in the victory, while at the same time ensure that players who have worked hard to train up their characters be able to defeat weaker characters. This is the only system that will cater to ALL current mmorpg players.
"The reason for participating in pvp is the exact same for the reason for participating in pve. love/respect for an accomplishment." This statement is again a very subjective one. You are certainly correct, many people do have only that goal in mind when participating in PVE or PVP. But the two are not the same, as you said yourself. In PVE you know the opponent doesn't suffer from emotion, so it's more likely you will have no negative emotions in killing them. The reasons for entering into PVE include respect, trust, accomplishment, necessity, pride, greed, there are more. PVP is different. When you know you are dealing with another emotional person the possibilty of negative emotions dramatically increase. You are dealing with human nature, in it's fullest unpredictability.
In PVE if you die, you experience negative feelings in general, if you die in PVP you experience negative feelings directed at another player. Do you not see the difference?
*Signature*The Pessimist says the cup is half empty. The Optimist says the cup is half full. The Pragmatist says the cup is half full of air. The Engineer says the cup is operating at 50% capacity. The Psychologist says the cup is your mother. The Punk Kid also says the cup is your mother. The Cricket Player says his cup is definately full. Everyone knows that Pamela Andersons cups are full. The Defendant says it was like that when he found it. Me, I just ask the waitress for a refill.
[quote]Kriminal said: Think of it this way? Do all single player games keep you continuously entertained? No (remember no multiplayer considered)... And they have not just one staff of developers, but many many developers to provide them. [/quote]
No, but neither does all MMORPG's or PvP games, no matter how it's made. So your point is pretty mute. There are definitely many more single player games that could keep me continuously entertain then MMO games. Games like Tetris, Tempest, SSX, EA Sports games, Links 2001 and many others are continuously entertaining to me, EVERY TIME I play. I'm talking about playing by myself too, not multiplayer. I've been playing Links 2001 since, well... 2001. Everytime I play it, it's fun. Of course not ALL single player games will keep you entertain and same goes for MMO games. I'm no longer entertained playing Planetside, and haven't been eager to play it since Oct 2003.
[quote]Kriminal said: lol what makes you think even more people think I am wrong then right? I'm here because I like to figure things out and arguing with people is a good way to refine your arguments. You and others like you are here because you are very afraid you are wrong and are angry (as evidenced by the posts being more childlike insults then meaningful arguments). Anyone who agrees with me and doesn't like to do this kind of thing has no reason to stick around. If you look back through the thread you will see maybe even as many people saying they agree and then ducking out as "OMG WHO U THINK U R" types repeatedly posting nonsense. And most people who agree might not post at all... [/quote]
Hhhmm.. have you been reading this thread? There may have been two or three people who agreed with you out of about 50. We're not afraid to be wrong, but I think you are. Many people here have posted concrete facts, but you continually brush them aside and then come up with your own ideas as to why they are wrong. Even if they are RIGHT you disprove their theory. That's why no one is taking you seriously. The people who agreed with you and left were the smart ones. They said what they had to say and vanished because your arguement is pretty pointless. Your argument that PvP needs to be in every MMO game for it to survive the long term and be successful has been snuffed out long ago.
[quote]Alient said: Once again, everything you are basing your arguments on are opinions. Why can't you just state "for a MMORPG to be continuously fun for me, it has to have PvP." Then there wouldn't be any argument.[/quote]
If he had said this, I could totally agree with him, because it would be HIS opinion only. I could understand him wanting PvP in every MMO game. I could understand many people wanting this, but not EVERYONE. I'm sure many developers believe that it's not totally necessary for a MMO game to be a hit.
[quote]Kriminal said: No Alient I meant do all single player games together keep you continuously entertained.
The argument is not opinion that is why I am not going to state it is an opinion... Thats why I can't do that.
There is nothing wrong NPC's that were unpredictable, except they are not possible at this point in time or any time soon. They not only have to make up for one person's unpredictability, but for ALL people in a game that you might randomly come into contact with. [/quote]
Of course ALL single playing games don't keep you entertained. Neither does all PvP games, even if they followed your argumental standards on what a PvP game should be.
Well... the argument IS an OPINION because you have no FACTS to prove your case. That's pretty much WHY it's just your OPINION. This is just your theory on how things should be. None of your arguments are in place and none of them have been proven to be FACT. Now have they? 
[quote]Deli Said: However, for a premise and logical argument to be true it must be supported by fact, none of which I have seen, unless it was in the 14 pages I did not read. You go on at length that a person must look at arguments logically and intellectually to come to a conclusion. A person can examine an argument based on premises, but if the premises are not supported by facts there is no basis to suggest the agreement is true.[/quote]
OMG Someone out there is reading my mind. LOL!! Yeah Deli I agree with you totally. Logical or illogical, without facts to prove your argument it's pretty much just an opinion. Whether you believe that or not, it's a FACT. LOL!!
[quote]Kriminal Said: Yes all pvp games definitely could Alient, its another person instead of just a predictable AI. Random people are always going to be able to challenge someone because the person looking for a challenge is also a person so they are always going to be another one just as good. Its this simple, how long do you think you can go around fighting mobs that were designed to let you win before you realize how stupid that is. Its like if your therapist told you to go around wearing a hat that said "superstar" on it. [/quote]
Cough.. Planetside..cough!! LOL!! I'm no longer entertained with this game. Actually about 40,000 subscribers have losed interest and left as well? There are NO PvE in this game whatsoever. Question for you. If someone who loves PvP played Planetside (or your version of PvP), but sucked so bad at it that it was more frustrating then entertaining and quit, would you still think that ALL PvP would be continuously entertaining? LOL!! You're statement should read, "PvP is continuously entertaining for some people (like Kriminal), but not ALL". That would actually be a FACT and a game like Planetside would be the proof. Makes sense., huh?
[quote]Kriminal Said: Once again the pvp structure is irrelevant to this point. Unless you could prove that something necessary to pvp causes inherently stressful to some people, and thats impossible. The only thing necessary to pvp is some type of competition and everyone has no problem with at least one type of competition therefore neither competition or pvp are inherently bad to anyone. [/quote]
I just proved it. Nuff said!!
Xander
Xander
Xander
Kriminal99, does your argument take into account that the Internet creates an autistic type state in all participating members by removing all the physical, identifying and tonal cues from standard conversation? That in this limited state of interaction, even a minor transgressions in the social dynamic or norm become intensified and blown out of proportion in the mind of many of the participants? That very few people on the Internet, no matter how socially healthy the may be RL, are exhibiting signs of gross dementia and disassociative disorders, due to the lack of persistent consequences for their actions?
I feel that if you root so much of your argument in sociology and psychology you must design your methodology on that of working with a large group of autistic and disassociative people. This would mean that any real world model, which by its nature is not designed for such a large divergent mindset, becomes invalid when applied to the Internet and Internet communication or Internet game play.
While I would not dispute that in a healthy population the need for random reward failure becomes necessary for enjoyment. In a population that is not healthy, such randomness is seen as being not random, therefor becomes unnecessarily stressful on many.
Also I am forced to admit, I did not read to page thirty in this tread but I did read your base theory and much of the couture theory.
From the point of view of a gaming company trying to cash in on an established money making market, your arguement holds. I.E. it is easiest for them to make money over the short term by providing PvP based games as that is what a majority of the potential customer base wants.
However, you can't apply that to each and every individual that may play a game. I, like some others in this thread, hate PvP in all its forms. Therefore, for me, there is no fun in it and it is not an aspect I look for in a game.
I look for the content that is so much harder to program into a game. he quests and challenges and team work scenarios are the things that I like and give me fun.
Your arguemens hold true given particular starting parameters and goals, when looking at a broad population, but can't be applied to any given individual. I.E. you might be able to say that 80% of the population would react in a given way to a given stimulous but you can't then pick out any given individual in that population and positively say which way they will react.
Also, its the risk takers that go agaisnt current perceived wisdoms that come up with the next great idea.
This thread was 7 days gone, and you had to dig it up... Dang...
Let dead dogs lie...
30 pages jeez i got to page 7....first of all skraight up kriminal and tmcc...pvp is lame if theres no reason for it beside "I PWNZ J00, I AM THE 1337 h4xx0r", if you want real pvp go play AO, thats a game with a real reason to pvp...not just i pwnz j00, players take part in a 2 side conflict...imo the only fun i get out of pvp is mass combat, arena pvp is just as boring as pve (maybe even more, since all pvpers are cookiecutter, just following some thread in some forum somewhere)
and BTW logic does not apply to emotion, a computer can be nothing more then perfect, it cant aspire to anything higher
1 more post and it be 300 posts long!
The base emotional triggers I am talking about are "feeling loved", "seeing someone in a bad situation you have experienced" and stuff like that. These are not absolute physical occurences but they are not purely subjective either. Its more like physical occurences are put through some kind of function that determines if they are a trigger for any emotion, and the function that all people start out with is the same. Then as their life goes on the function changes based on their experiences. Yes there are probably physical occurences which HAVE to produce the same reaction in all people, such as being genuinely smiled at. Since smiling is a reaction to a good emotion caused by the physiology of a person it is pretty much impossible for someone to not see being genuinely smiled at as a good thing. Hypothetically you might be able to completely isolate someone and not give them access to any reflective surfaces and then try and train them that smiling was bad, but whats the point... As long as someone lives in society then smiling is probably going to be a trigger for a good emotion for them.
Or it might be that smiling being a trigger for a good emotion is inherent knowledge. There has to be at least one preprogrammed physical trigger for each emotion. Obviously babies feel emotion and also there has to be somewhere to start the chain. If these starting triggers were different people would not be able to communicate emotion to one another, people would be to different to have any kind of order in the world, and it would be obvious that this was the case. The only thing that would really make sense is if the initial physical trigger for each emotion was something which the body already knew had to be the sign that a human being was feeling the good emotion. As long as what it came into contact with was a member of its own species then it would know it was happy, and as long as it was looking (could also be inherent knowledge) into the babies eyes while smiling the baby would know that it was happy because of the baby.
From there the person maybe smiles while saying something, and that thing then becomes a seperate way to feel loved through relation. And then actions such as figuring something out can become related etc.
ANyways there is only one long term motivator and that is the feeling of love/respect. Fun is sometimes also used to describe realization or the effects of chemical drugs, but these things won't cause someone to continually play a video game. So if someone is playing a video game then we know it has to be for a feeling of love/respect, and it's easy to tell what things are going to cause this feeling and what things aren't....
-to be cont
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
</bump>
Because someone said it was deleted.
Richard J. Cox
"There were much of the beautiful, much of the wanton, much of the bizarre, something of the terrible, and not a little of that which might have excited disgust."
Well it was like 8 or 9 pages back in the list.
Richard J. Cox
"There were much of the beautiful, much of the wanton, much of the bizarre, something of the terrible, and not a little of that which might have excited disgust."