Originally posted by Azoth How would you describe someone that only do crafting in Darkfall that doesn't mind pvp while gathering but is never seeking it ?
What would attract casuals is good and fair gameplay. "Casuals" play PvP games en masse. From BF, CoD, to Dota, LoL, CS. They're not against the concept of player versus player per se. What they can't stand is games where gear is above skill which these FFA MMOs tend to turn after a while. you basically have people grinding for months and one shoting everyone.
That's not fun or fair and is what causes the "casuals" to leave.
Carebears is a term meant to put down a player right not sure but that is the impression I got but the OP uses it as a clearly identifiable type of gameplay associated with a player. What I cannot understand is why would a carebear player as the term implies play a FFA PvP MMORPG ? Wouldn't they avoid it at all cost ? So how do you depend on them ?
Eve did something no other ffa game did. They made the risk out weigh the reward for ganking in large areas of the game. That let the pve players have an area to play in without constantly being killed by idiots so they stayed in the game.
Risk vs Reward? What an amazing concept... Who would have thought of that?!
For sure, few PvE players have yet grasped this concept given how often they will blame PvP for all their problems and not the actual game mechanics that are too permissive.
"Carebears" (see the quotes?) are not alone though, most game designers don't get this either so there is nothing to worry about, aside from a few exceptions, most games will still end up with boring-repetitive-unsurprising PvE and a horrid PvP design. PvP that is gradually phased out as nobody actually likes it.
Let's simply be inspired by real life with laws and find a good risk vs reward ratio. The perspective of a punishment is why you don't have people killing you everywhere for the $/£20 you have in your pocket (IRL). They would do it otherwise, and real life would be full of gankers and unfairness.
Let the gankers have the freedom to kill and assume the consequence (which isn't against the definition of FFA).
OP is trying to push his/her own agenda rather than actually finding constructive solutions to the issue.
Originally posted by askdabossThe perspective of a punishment is why you don't have people killing you everywhere for the $/£20 you have in your pocket (IRL).
So that is why states with capital punishment have next to none criminal homicide, right?
You are wrong, the level of punishment has no bearing on criminal behavior.
Risk vs reward concept is silly and never really works because everyone has different risk tolerance and most players tolerance is very low...thus, making the concept moot.
So that is why in countries where you lose a hand for theft they have less theft....that is risk vs reward. Capital punishment is a joke the way it is used. You are more likely to die of old age first.
EVE online is a true FFA Sandbox game that has been sustainable for many years... it does NOT have a "PVE base" and it's the main example as to why your premise is wrong. I'm sick of PVEer acting like the sacred overlords of MMOs. You guys just don't GET open world PVP and you should stop trying to shape every MMO out there to YOUR needs. There's plenty of carebear games.
playing eve since january 2007 and you're absolutely nuts if you think there's no PVE base in eve.
heck man, there's a PVE base of every solid PVP alliance!! where the crap do you think the PVP ships come from? not from the folks who log on and roam all day.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
I recently left Darkfall and a few people started to say bye to me in the general chat when I left. The only thing that ran through my mind at that moment was - You need me, I don't need you so I closed the client immediately.
I helped their new ppl and answered questions over and over which were repetitive for nothing in return but trying to build a community. I put goods on the auction house for ppl to use at decent prices. I never moaned once to anyone who attacked me in the wild though it put me behind. I never whispered them and told them what a piece of shit they were to take something instead of earning it.
I still think that it's their loss when I left. I took one less person to gank out of their world. They offered me nothing in return to stay because I was trying to be in a community which didn't want one. Now I get to find another place to be involved in a community while they will only continue to drive people away from them and now even I'm not around to answer questions for them keeping more ppl around.
I don't really consider myself a carebear though. I'll PVP like a maniac but I can't stand unfair fights and I'm not into jumping people at a weak moment like when they are fighting mobs. I don't feel like I need that advantage because I know how to play these games. Many people in that game need that advantage to play and feeding the ego of the "bad" isn't a prize.
That game was the third time I gave a free for all PVP game a chance. I think that what pisses me off most about them is that they are a microcosm of reality. Like Diogenes I'm seeking that honest man. When the rules are removed and you are allowed to act as your character dictates, I don't like that so many humans only seek to ruin another for personal gain. It's not the loss of pixels that piss me off, it's knowing that without x and laws people are freaking animals and though they won't admit that they need a guiding hand to smack theirs when they treat other humans wrong because they lack self control when they can rise while pushing another fellow human in the mud, they exhibit this behavior repeatedly each place I encounter the scenario. I don't like that the majority of humans NEED eternal or mortal punishment to act right. You see, doing the right thing when no one sees it is big for me. In my younger days I imagined anarchy and I expected the cream to rise to lead a nation of people who didn't need someone to tell them right from wrong. I see now that it was a true pipe dream. The majority of people are so enraptured by selfies and personal gain that they can't get beyond the thought that someone earned something they can't have because they won't work hard enough. It's all a mirror on society to be in those environments and experience human depravity. How are we ever going to populate new planets - visit first to build prisons before the populations come? This human condition is really stifling our progress. I don't like it - I don't like it all.
I holeheartly agree with your opinion. Human morale is just a concept of restrictioning animalic instincts by sanctioning them. There may be some individuals with strong empathic abilities (internal restriction) that can control their behaviour without any futher external sanctions. But in general complete freedom and lack of sanctions just leads to excessive bad behaviour from the majority.
That's why most FFA PVP MMOs don't work that well. The sanctions to control bad impulses are just not strong enough, so it's getting way to easy to be the predator. But unlike in real environments the prey (or the "carebears") has the option to just leave. Game over .....
Many PVPers just don't get that symbiotic relationship.
I recently left Darkfall and a few people started to say bye to me in the general chat when I left. The only thing that ran through my mind at that moment was - You need me, I don't need you so I closed the client immediately.
I helped their new ppl and answered questions over and over which were repetitive for nothing in return but trying to build a community. I put goods on the auction house for ppl to use at decent prices. I never moaned once to anyone who attacked me in the wild though it put me behind. I never whispered them and told them what a piece of shit they were to take something instead of earning it.
I still think that it's their loss when I left. I took one less person to gank out of their world. They offered me nothing in return to stay because I was trying to be in a community which didn't want one. Now I get to find another place to be involved in a community while they will only continue to drive people away from them and now even I'm not around to answer questions for them keeping more ppl around.
I don't really consider myself a carebear though. I'll PVP like a maniac but I can't stand unfair fights and I'm not into jumping people at a weak moment like when they are fighting mobs. I don't feel like I need that advantage because I know how to play these games. Many people in that game need that advantage to play and feeding the ego of the "bad" isn't a prize.
That game was the third time I gave a free for all PVP game a chance. I think that what pisses me off most about them is that they are a microcosm of reality. Like Diogenes I'm seeking that honest man. When the rules are removed and you are allowed to act as your character dictates, I don't like that so many humans only seek to ruin another for personal gain. It's not the loss of pixels that piss me off, it's knowing that without x and laws people are freaking animals and though they won't admit that they need a guiding hand to smack theirs when they treat other humans wrong because they lack self control when they can rise while pushing another fellow human in the mud, they exhibit this behavior repeatedly each place I encounter the scenario. I don't like that the majority of humans NEED eternal or mortal punishment to act right. You see, doing the right thing when no one sees it is big for me. In my younger days I imagined anarchy and I expected the cream to rise to lead a nation of people who didn't need someone to tell them right from wrong. I see now that it was a true pipe dream. The majority of people are so enraptured by selfies and personal gain that they can't get beyond the thought that someone earned something they can't have because they won't work hard enough. It's all a mirror on society to be in those environments and experience human depravity. How are we ever going to populate new planets - visit first to build prisons before the populations come? This human condition is really stifling our progress. I don't like it - I don't like it all.
I holeheartly agree with your opinion. Human morale is just a concept of restrictioning animalic instincts by sanctioning them. There may be some individuals with strong empathic abilities (internal restriction) that can control their behaviour without any futher external sanctions. But in general complete freedom and lack of sanctions just leads to excessive bad behaviour from the majority.
That's why most FFA PVP MMOs don't work that well. The sanctions to control bad impulses are just not strong enough, so it's getting way to easy to be the predator. But unlike in real environments the prey (or the "carebears") has the option to just leave. Game over .....
Many PVPers just don't get that symbiotic relationship.
I disagree. FFA-PVP is not indicative of wider human behaviour as it is a) only enjoyed by a minority of gamers, and b) a medium in which those things you may find incredibly important in real life are entirely expendable. I would say that someone's action in a game are probably a quite huge exaggeration of their likely personality in real life. That said, the minority of people who enjoy ganking are unlikely to be the sort of people I would want to know inside or outside a game.
With regard to morals being an act of restricting instincts I think you are entirely incorrect. We are a social animal and we have evolved such that having reciprocally beneficial relationships is a requirement to survive. That is where morals derive from, our natural requirement to help those around us and in return receive help. Morals are not trying to suppress natural instincts, they ARE natural instincts.
The problem with the design of most FFA PVP games is that it puts people into an entirely artificial construct devoid of any of the risks associated with real life, and thus allows players to behave in a manner entirely unassociated with real life.
Eve has no PvE players ? I didn't know you could play for almost a decade never pvping and still consider yourself a pvp'er.
Eve did something no other ffa game did. They made the risk out weigh the reward for ganking in large areas of the game. That let the pve players have an area to play in without constantly being killed by idiots so they stayed in the game. So pretty much what the op said is true.
I think you're right. EVE does have PvE players. It's a shame that they don't get much developer attention.
There was a time, deep in EVE's development history (back before CCP went independent), when they envisioned a much broader, more intriguing PvE experience. We see the relics of that in the Empire corporations and their ratings systems. You do missions for them? The ratings increase, but the ratings decrease for that NPC corporation's enemies. It was, for me, a brilliant system that they just abandoned...kind of like World of Darkness. Sometimes, very rarely, you can even see a character who is part of one of those NPC corporations...and we aren't talking the holding corps like Viziam or The Scope, or developers in some GM event. Back in the early days, you could join those Empire NPC corps, and those characters from those days are grandfathered in.
They threw out that sand in the sandbox to make room for more rocks to throw at one another. Part of that involves moving players from a lore-based faction versus faction perspective to a clan versus clan perspective. That's why they had to close the NPC corps down and promote player corps as the only alternative.
But I'm getting off track...
I don't think concepts like "risk" or "reward" have much meaning when it comes to the subject of high-sec ganking in EVE. If it did, Gankageddon and lame stunts like it wouldn't exist. Risk and reward presumes a normal, rational actor; someone who is hoping to gain some quantifiable advantage and risks something valuable in the process. That includes me and you, and probably most of EVE.
But there is a segment who is no longer even motivated by the things that motivate everyone else. ISK? They have so much, they don't know what to do with it except buy more PLEX. Making a good name for themselves? They already did it for their main, but they have alts that are standing idle just training skills. Or sometimes you are part of an alliance that is so dominant, you don't have to worry about any losses at all.
To these folks, the disincentives that stand at the core of EVE's PvP system no longer have much meaning. One might even say that the suicide gankers are so far removed from the rest of EVE's players, they are no longer even playing the same game. And so "risk" and "reward" doesn't even apply anymore, because the suicide ganker effectively risks nothing, and isn't even doing it to gain anything but perhaps a YouTube video or some lulz. If we listen to the suicide gankers, like the Goons in Gankageddon, they'll admit that they don't do it for anything tangible. They do it because they can, and they do it for the pleasure of messing up Tranquility at will.
Just like the "reward" can't be cast in rational, quantifiable terms, the "risk" can't be cast that way either. If you listen to the high-sec gankers, they never gank with characters they care about. They always use a throwaway character, an alt trained specifically for the task, who won't mind being blown up or podded. And they have enough ISK to not care about the loss of some battlecruiser. Some, like the Goons, are so rich, losses due to Concordokken have no meaning anymore.
So I think what EVE shows--more than anything--is that there is no way to truly "disincentivize" PvP through mechanics. You may disincentivize it for your average player, but whatever disincentive we can come up with is nothing more than an easily surmounted barrier to your powerplayer who no longer gives a sh!t. If you make it so your reputation suffers for ganking n00bs? That's easy...just get a second account or second character who just ganks n00bs. A fine? Just make enough money, or buy enough money off of the secondary market, to pay it off each time. Powerful enemies who will kill you and confiscate your stuff? Just have a "sugar daddy alt" who can re-equipp your griefer character.
In short, mechanics that protect n00bs are nothing more than barriers to which the power player will aspire to surmount, in order to gank at will.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
What would attract casuals is good and fair gameplay. "Casuals" play PvP games en masse. From BF, CoD, to Dota, LoL, CS. They're not against the concept of player versus player per se. What they can't stand is games where gear is above skill which these FFA MMOs tend to turn after a while. you basically have people grinding for months and one shoting everyone.
That's not fun or fair and is what causes the "casuals" to leave.
Not only that ... they separate their game modes. When they pve, they don't want to mix in pvp. If I am mining, let me mine ... if i want to pvp, i can always go into the arena.
Hence, e-sport is popular because it is pure pvp with nothing mixed in.
I find it funny how FFA PvPers tend to think that us PvEers are overreacting. From the first coining of the negative "carebear" connotation to the numerous unwarranted deaths I have incurred throughout my times playing PvP enabled games I am not one to just overreact on a whim. I try and hold my own on any attack but it is almost ALWAYS someone who is MAX level picking on me as I am leveling up. Something about this dichotomy does not sit well with me. Walk away from any PvP game for 10 minutes and more than likely your dead by someone provided the server population is high enough. Yeah now that is fun being killed when your not even at the computer.
What has occurred in the past -
Death while AFK.
Death while I was just PvE leveling.
Death while traveling to a location.
Death while waiting at a dungeon for a party.
What I find funny is that RARELY if ever was this a valid fair fight. It was always someone WAY over me or it was a group of people against just me. Almost all PvP games the rules are skewed to the attacker in such a way that it makes it not worth being a non attacker. Attacker gets all your loot, Attacker gets all your inventory, Attacker gets some minor debuff for an hour, Attacker gets sent to some Jail where they can still do quests and get experience points, and the worst of them all Attacker has no consequence at all.
How are ANY of these rules to make it worth it for the "carebears" that you guys so lovingly call us? Here is my suggestion.
FFA Open world PVP -
1) Level difference makes a direct impact on what is dropped from inventory. The higher the difference the less loot you will get.
2) Each PvP death by anyone over X levels gives the attackee a token said token would then be useable in the future for a gain of some kind (along the lines of a exp boost elixir or something to compensate the death in some way)
3) Disallow PvP attacking of anyone who is currently in a PvE engagement (e.g. crafting, gathering, or battle).
4) Allow for a bounty system where people who are PKed can then go to the board and put the last attackers name on the board and offer bounties. (Can be used in conjunction with number 2 or perhaps make it so the token can be either saved for the use OR used to pput out the bounty).
5) Make it so the larger the level difference of the kill the larger and longer the debuff the player doing the PKing gets.
6) Do some kind of AUTO releveling system. Meaning if you target someone who is 37 and your 60+ then your attacks scale down to the attack amount you would be at 37. (This option would eliminate options 1, and 5).
I think if you did something along these lines and kept PvP around similar leveled players I would be ALOT more willing to play a FFA PvP Open world concept MMO. Of course the rules above would make the PvPers complain and then leave for the most part because a lot of them don't want the fair fight. At least none of the hundreds who have killed me over the years in Open world PvP systems at last. What they for the most part do want is to call us carebears while ganking us and taking our loot making them feel superior about what they do in a video game against others. I stopped playing PvP when I had a guildmate on Ventrilo and I was not chatting and he did the exact attacks I hated on others and I got to listen to the glee in hi voice as he "powned those caebear noobs" and that he "wished he could see them at home crying". Sorry for those of you mature PvPers but this is my experience (that I can't stand) with the PvP community for the most part.
Not only that ... they separate their game modes. When they pve, they don't want to mix in pvp. If I am mining, let me mine ... if i want to pvp, i can always go into the arena.
Hence, e-sport is popular because it is pure pvp with nothing mixed in.
MOBAs are quite huge thing right now,theres plenty of NPCs and resource gathering.
dont get upset if enemies wont let you "mine" and gather resources even if you want to.
And thats the key which produces stories in good MMOs,allways expect the unexpected.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
States WITH death penalty have even higher murder rate per capita.
Penalty does not deter a crime...
It depends on what other correlations can be made, for example crime correlating with poverty levels. I think you would find a far stronger correlation there, and you may also find that those countries/ states with high levels of poverty also have harsher punishments as a rule which would render your entire hypothesis a nil result.
The easiest solution is to have alternate rule set servers. I am not opposed to PvP'ers having their own servers, and none of my PvE friends are either. What we want is the same type of sandbox elements without the PvP. It worked in Asheron's Call and contrary to popular belief, it worked in Ultima Online (subscriber base went way up after Trammel).
However every time this simple and elegant solution is brought up, the majority of the PvP crowd screams foul. They believe the sudden inclusion of PvE players will come flooding into their game if there is no ruleset server to accommodate the MUCH larger PvE crowd. In reality, every single time, the PvE players stay away and the game fails and fails hard.
It does work and is indeed the easiest way but it isn't the best.
The best would be to have PvP good enough to attract a large crowd without any PvE at all, focusing a game means you can focus the mechanics purely on PvP and don't have to worry about stuff like AI, taunts and so on.
The problem there is that no MMO really have done that well enough which means that PvP games are small niche games.
And don't give me the crap about people prefer PvE, FPS games started out as PvE games as well (with "Doom") but as soon as they got the mechanics good enough they attracted the majority of the players.
You just can't take the mechanics from Wow, EQ or whatever and use them directly for a PvP game, they are really made with PvE in focus and the other purely PvP mechanics ain't good enough of PvP would have been a lot larger.
What would attract casuals is good and fair gameplay. "Casuals" play PvP games en masse. From BF, CoD, to Dota, LoL, CS. They're not against the concept of player versus player per se. What they can't stand is games where gear is above skill which these FFA MMOs tend to turn after a while. you basically have people grinding for months and one shoting everyone.
That's not fun or fair and is what causes the "casuals" to leave.
Not only that ... they separate their game modes. When they pve, they don't want to mix in pvp. If I am mining, let me mine ... if i want to pvp, i can always go into the arena.
Hence, e-sport is popular because it is pure pvp with nothing mixed in.
Agreed, and calling everyone that doesn't like unfair PvP "casual" isn't fair either, all good PvP fights are when both sides involved can win. Ganking noobs with zero chance of loosing seems more casual to me than fighting people who actually can fight back.
As I said before, I don't want a mix that is separated but a good pure PvP game though. If I want to PvE I rather play a second game which only focuses on it. Mixing them together always seems to mean that at least one will suck and that the devs waste valuable resources they could use to make the game awesome instead of just average.
Originally posted by Horusra FPS are also resetting matches where there is no real loss involved.
That is indeed true but I don't think that is why they are so successful.
Combat is fun since everyone are if not equal so at least a threat. In current MMOs are many players no threat to you at all while others are 100% impossible to beat.
Comments
How would you describe someone that only do crafting in Darkfall that doesn't mind pvp while gathering but is never seeking it ?
I think you can be a casual or hardcore PVEer and you can be a casual or hardcore PVPer
Crafter.
What would attract casuals is good and fair gameplay. "Casuals" play PvP games en masse. From BF, CoD, to Dota, LoL, CS. They're not against the concept of player versus player per se. What they can't stand is games where gear is above skill which these FFA MMOs tend to turn after a while. you basically have people grinding for months and one shoting everyone.
That's not fun or fair and is what causes the "casuals" to leave.
Tags like these are meaningles anyway.
Too subjective and people use them too much and too casual-lightly to have any real weight.
But yeah you are right.
Risk vs Reward? What an amazing concept... Who would have thought of that?!
For sure, few PvE players have yet grasped this concept given how often they will blame PvP for all their problems and not the actual game mechanics that are too permissive.
"Carebears" (see the quotes?) are not alone though, most game designers don't get this either so there is nothing to worry about, aside from a few exceptions, most games will still end up with boring-repetitive-unsurprising PvE and a horrid PvP design. PvP that is gradually phased out as nobody actually likes it.
Let's simply be inspired by real life with laws and find a good risk vs reward ratio. The perspective of a punishment is why you don't have people killing you everywhere for the $/£20 you have in your pocket (IRL). They would do it otherwise, and real life would be full of gankers and unfairness.
Let the gankers have the freedom to kill and assume the consequence (which isn't against the definition of FFA).
OP is trying to push his/her own agenda rather than actually finding constructive solutions to the issue.
So that is why states with capital punishment have next to none criminal homicide, right?
You are wrong, the level of punishment has no bearing on criminal behavior.
Risk vs reward concept is silly and never really works because everyone has different risk tolerance and most players tolerance is very low...thus, making the concept moot.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Also, I would like to see your data...
That would be wrong.
playing eve since january 2007 and you're absolutely nuts if you think there's no PVE base in eve.
heck man, there's a PVE base of every solid PVP alliance!! where the crap do you think the PVP ships come from? not from the folks who log on and roam all day.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
I holeheartly agree with your opinion. Human morale is just a concept of restrictioning animalic instincts by sanctioning them. There may be some individuals with strong empathic abilities (internal restriction) that can control their behaviour without any futher external sanctions. But in general complete freedom and lack of sanctions just leads to excessive bad behaviour from the majority.
That's why most FFA PVP MMOs don't work that well. The sanctions to control bad impulses are just not strong enough, so it's getting way to easy to be the predator. But unlike in real environments the prey (or the "carebears") has the option to just leave. Game over .....
Many PVPers just don't get that symbiotic relationship.
I disagree. FFA-PVP is not indicative of wider human behaviour as it is a) only enjoyed by a minority of gamers, and b) a medium in which those things you may find incredibly important in real life are entirely expendable. I would say that someone's action in a game are probably a quite huge exaggeration of their likely personality in real life. That said, the minority of people who enjoy ganking are unlikely to be the sort of people I would want to know inside or outside a game.
With regard to morals being an act of restricting instincts I think you are entirely incorrect. We are a social animal and we have evolved such that having reciprocally beneficial relationships is a requirement to survive. That is where morals derive from, our natural requirement to help those around us and in return receive help. Morals are not trying to suppress natural instincts, they ARE natural instincts.
The problem with the design of most FFA PVP games is that it puts people into an entirely artificial construct devoid of any of the risks associated with real life, and thus allows players to behave in a manner entirely unassociated with real life.
I think you're right. EVE does have PvE players. It's a shame that they don't get much developer attention.
There was a time, deep in EVE's development history (back before CCP went independent), when they envisioned a much broader, more intriguing PvE experience. We see the relics of that in the Empire corporations and their ratings systems. You do missions for them? The ratings increase, but the ratings decrease for that NPC corporation's enemies. It was, for me, a brilliant system that they just abandoned...kind of like World of Darkness. Sometimes, very rarely, you can even see a character who is part of one of those NPC corporations...and we aren't talking the holding corps like Viziam or The Scope, or developers in some GM event. Back in the early days, you could join those Empire NPC corps, and those characters from those days are grandfathered in.
They threw out that sand in the sandbox to make room for more rocks to throw at one another. Part of that involves moving players from a lore-based faction versus faction perspective to a clan versus clan perspective. That's why they had to close the NPC corps down and promote player corps as the only alternative.
But I'm getting off track...
I don't think concepts like "risk" or "reward" have much meaning when it comes to the subject of high-sec ganking in EVE. If it did, Gankageddon and lame stunts like it wouldn't exist. Risk and reward presumes a normal, rational actor; someone who is hoping to gain some quantifiable advantage and risks something valuable in the process. That includes me and you, and probably most of EVE.
But there is a segment who is no longer even motivated by the things that motivate everyone else. ISK? They have so much, they don't know what to do with it except buy more PLEX. Making a good name for themselves? They already did it for their main, but they have alts that are standing idle just training skills. Or sometimes you are part of an alliance that is so dominant, you don't have to worry about any losses at all.
To these folks, the disincentives that stand at the core of EVE's PvP system no longer have much meaning. One might even say that the suicide gankers are so far removed from the rest of EVE's players, they are no longer even playing the same game. And so "risk" and "reward" doesn't even apply anymore, because the suicide ganker effectively risks nothing, and isn't even doing it to gain anything but perhaps a YouTube video or some lulz. If we listen to the suicide gankers, like the Goons in Gankageddon, they'll admit that they don't do it for anything tangible. They do it because they can, and they do it for the pleasure of messing up Tranquility at will.
Just like the "reward" can't be cast in rational, quantifiable terms, the "risk" can't be cast that way either. If you listen to the high-sec gankers, they never gank with characters they care about. They always use a throwaway character, an alt trained specifically for the task, who won't mind being blown up or podded. And they have enough ISK to not care about the loss of some battlecruiser. Some, like the Goons, are so rich, losses due to Concordokken have no meaning anymore.
So I think what EVE shows--more than anything--is that there is no way to truly "disincentivize" PvP through mechanics. You may disincentivize it for your average player, but whatever disincentive we can come up with is nothing more than an easily surmounted barrier to your powerplayer who no longer gives a sh!t. If you make it so your reputation suffers for ganking n00bs? That's easy...just get a second account or second character who just ganks n00bs. A fine? Just make enough money, or buy enough money off of the secondary market, to pay it off each time. Powerful enemies who will kill you and confiscate your stuff? Just have a "sugar daddy alt" who can re-equipp your griefer character.
In short, mechanics that protect n00bs are nothing more than barriers to which the power player will aspire to surmount, in order to gank at will.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Not only that ... they separate their game modes. When they pve, they don't want to mix in pvp. If I am mining, let me mine ... if i want to pvp, i can always go into the arena.
Hence, e-sport is popular because it is pure pvp with nothing mixed in.
I find it funny how FFA PvPers tend to think that us PvEers are overreacting. From the first coining of the negative "carebear" connotation to the numerous unwarranted deaths I have incurred throughout my times playing PvP enabled games I am not one to just overreact on a whim. I try and hold my own on any attack but it is almost ALWAYS someone who is MAX level picking on me as I am leveling up. Something about this dichotomy does not sit well with me. Walk away from any PvP game for 10 minutes and more than likely your dead by someone provided the server population is high enough. Yeah now that is fun being killed when your not even at the computer.
What has occurred in the past -
Death while AFK.
Death while I was just PvE leveling.
Death while traveling to a location.
Death while waiting at a dungeon for a party.
What I find funny is that RARELY if ever was this a valid fair fight. It was always someone WAY over me or it was a group of people against just me. Almost all PvP games the rules are skewed to the attacker in such a way that it makes it not worth being a non attacker. Attacker gets all your loot, Attacker gets all your inventory, Attacker gets some minor debuff for an hour, Attacker gets sent to some Jail where they can still do quests and get experience points, and the worst of them all Attacker has no consequence at all.
How are ANY of these rules to make it worth it for the "carebears" that you guys so lovingly call us? Here is my suggestion.
FFA Open world PVP -
1) Level difference makes a direct impact on what is dropped from inventory. The higher the difference the less loot you will get.
2) Each PvP death by anyone over X levels gives the attackee a token said token would then be useable in the future for a gain of some kind (along the lines of a exp boost elixir or something to compensate the death in some way)
3) Disallow PvP attacking of anyone who is currently in a PvE engagement (e.g. crafting, gathering, or battle).
4) Allow for a bounty system where people who are PKed can then go to the board and put the last attackers name on the board and offer bounties. (Can be used in conjunction with number 2 or perhaps make it so the token can be either saved for the use OR used to pput out the bounty).
5) Make it so the larger the level difference of the kill the larger and longer the debuff the player doing the PKing gets.
6) Do some kind of AUTO releveling system. Meaning if you target someone who is 37 and your 60+ then your attacks scale down to the attack amount you would be at 37. (This option would eliminate options 1, and 5).
I think if you did something along these lines and kept PvP around similar leveled players I would be ALOT more willing to play a FFA PvP Open world concept MMO. Of course the rules above would make the PvPers complain and then leave for the most part because a lot of them don't want the fair fight. At least none of the hundreds who have killed me over the years in Open world PvP systems at last. What they for the most part do want is to call us carebears while ganking us and taking our loot making them feel superior about what they do in a video game against others. I stopped playing PvP when I had a guildmate on Ventrilo and I was not chatting and he did the exact attacks I hated on others and I got to listen to the glee in hi voice as he "powned those caebear noobs" and that he "wished he could see them at home crying". Sorry for those of you mature PvPers but this is my experience (that I can't stand) with the PvP community for the most part.
"Correlate that they have no effect" - what is that supposed to mean? How does one corralate with nothing and where am I supposedly doing so?
As for the data, easy to look up:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
States WITH death penalty have even higher murder rate per capita.
Penalty does not deter a crime...
nvm..
MOBAs are quite huge thing right now,theres plenty of NPCs and resource gathering.
dont get upset if enemies wont let you "mine" and gather resources even if you want to.
And thats the key which produces stories in good MMOs,allways expect the unexpected.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
It depends on what other correlations can be made, for example crime correlating with poverty levels. I think you would find a far stronger correlation there, and you may also find that those countries/ states with high levels of poverty also have harsher punishments as a rule which would render your entire hypothesis a nil result.
It does work and is indeed the easiest way but it isn't the best.
The best would be to have PvP good enough to attract a large crowd without any PvE at all, focusing a game means you can focus the mechanics purely on PvP and don't have to worry about stuff like AI, taunts and so on.
The problem there is that no MMO really have done that well enough which means that PvP games are small niche games.
And don't give me the crap about people prefer PvE, FPS games started out as PvE games as well (with "Doom") but as soon as they got the mechanics good enough they attracted the majority of the players.
You just can't take the mechanics from Wow, EQ or whatever and use them directly for a PvP game, they are really made with PvE in focus and the other purely PvP mechanics ain't good enough of PvP would have been a lot larger.
Agreed, and calling everyone that doesn't like unfair PvP "casual" isn't fair either, all good PvP fights are when both sides involved can win. Ganking noobs with zero chance of loosing seems more casual to me than fighting people who actually can fight back.
As I said before, I don't want a mix that is separated but a good pure PvP game though. If I want to PvE I rather play a second game which only focuses on it. Mixing them together always seems to mean that at least one will suck and that the devs waste valuable resources they could use to make the game awesome instead of just average.
That is indeed true but I don't think that is why they are so successful.
Combat is fun since everyone are if not equal so at least a threat. In current MMOs are many players no threat to you at all while others are 100% impossible to beat.