Originally posted by Ramonski7 Premise 1: The game aspect of any video game (ie not the social aspect) is fun in psychological terms because the player enjoys approaching a point where they will be respected for their accomplishments, although not by any real or specific person. --->Being respected for their accomplishments is NOT everyone's idea of fun here (that's you opinion). The feeling of accomplishing something gives people a feeling of self-worth, that is what drives people to do it again(my opinion and more logical). You are NOT being logical when you believe: A fun game = player accomplishments+being respected(maybe in a MMO, but not games in general) Premise 2: Upon reaching that point, the sought after respect hardly ever manifests itself in reality for the majority of players. (I E through other real people recognizing the players achievments) At this point the game ceases to be fun. --->Again this logic is based off your opinion and let's assume your rationale is true. The next logical step would be to try a new type of game at this point. This is clearly where the need of a MMORPG would step in. Your premises for #3 and #4 are irrelavant and hold no bearing on the arguement you are trying to support, they are only restating the points you've made in premise #1. Premise 5: Players consume or advance through static precreated game content at an average rate of more than 10 times that which it takes to create it. This means that in order to sustain the fun level of a mmorpg just based on single player type static content you would need more than 10x the man hours that a player put into the game. I do not believe this is cost effective, and obviously neither do mmorpg developers as is evidence by their attempted use of cheap tricks to extend game content. --->Ok first of all THIS is where you should have started this topic. Why you've tried to include any of the other information from above I don't know, like I've said from the get go this logical opinion is based off nothing more than YOUR views on why one plays a game/mmorpg. /endrant --->Now back to your topic. Time, what time frame are we talking about here? Weeks, months, years? And what are you assuming is the time it takes to create a game? Let's say maybe 3 years? Sounds good? Ok now let's insert it in you little formula: 10 x 3 years = 30 years......no no static content lasting 30 years?!? Oh no that's too long.....how about 1 year.......10 years?!?...damn...hmm. Again LOGICALLY a MMORPG takes a good 2-3 years in development and that's pushing it on my end. Assuming you meant a smaller number which I assumed you did, cost to add new content to a already exisiting game is less than trying to develop PvP content and inserting it into a game. Can you imagine the type of upset that would cause to the balance in the game? *On average a mmorpg may see 2-3 expansions at $9.99-$19.99(maybe even free in some cases). This along would balance out any setbacks that may have occured to temperary lack of funds to a company. And logically adding new lands and higher levels as rather than a new Pvp engine fully balanced would be more cost effective. Also your average mmorpg only last to massive players for about a 6 months to a year. Premise 6: Following from all before, the only way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun is to have the player encounter setbacks or slow the player down. However to do this at any time when the player did not expect or have control over it is what psychologists call random punishment, and is about as far away from fun as you can get. To give the setback when the player DOES expect it is acceptable but usually just means that the player will avoid doing whatever it is the player will be setback for. The only time when a player will do something which might set him back is when the possible gains are worth the risk. This is gambling. --->Where did you get your rationale from?!? Are you like a pencil-neck developer who is trying to pitch a new PvP idea to save a dying mmorpg to a bunch of executives or what? No real players enjoy setbacks it is not fun. Try to remember that. At best your statement will sound better if worded like this: The only way to cost-effectively draw out maximum profits while keeping a player's level of interest high and drawing in new player's, is to introduce a way to add content that will last for the game's lifespan. It must be player controlled with some risks and has the potential for even greater rewards with minimum setbacks. *If you or anyone for that matter has figured this out, consider yourself a millionare. You need to contact about a dozen developers with your idea. --->Gambling in the sense of what others will think you are talking about only involves risk to someone's monetary possesions. As soon as it crosses the line of taking away someone's items, stats or anything other than money, then you have lost the arguement to the MASSES. And what are the greedy execs looking for: masses of PAYING customers Also premises #8 and #9 are pretty much what you are saying in premise #6 and require no further mention. Premise 7: The only entity to date in video games unpredictable enough so that the player will not just assume he can beat it (and therefore dieing to it would be random punsihment) or that he has no chance against it (so he will just avoid it), and can retain this unpredictability through a near infinite amount of interactions, is another player. --->So true but it has no logical bearing on your point. Let me explain why using another human-player as a means of taking a 'gamble' is illogical for many reasons: 1)Equipment- anyone's guess what the other is using 2)Stats- no way of telling what they may be 3)Buffs- same as #2 4)Class/Job- melee vs magic vs support vs hybrid 5)Balancing issues(PvP vs PvE)- A big factor in SWG and DAOC as well as some other mmorpgs * To date there are NO gains that out weigh the risks invovled in PvP in any mmorpg UNLESS you are involved the PvP content to begin with: 1)PvP point systems- useless in PvE or to someone who only dabbles in it 2)Money- easier to get it by other means 3)Items- only if you PvP with your same class In conclusion: This is yet another one-sided topic to argue the point about PvP in a MMORPG that flood these forums. Nothing more, nothing less. Your atempt to try to break down the logic behind why some people choose to PvP and some don't, is entertaining at best. For when you do get feedback from others that don't share your passion, you quickly put up your defenses and lash out at others for giving their opinions. This is in a since highly illogical when your whole topic is littered with your own opinions and views.
Im not going to dignify the stuff at the beginning of your post with a response but to your disputes:
as to Premise 1 Your basically just saying the same thing I am without knowing it. I should have known better than to treat this as common knowledge (no offense) but psychologists will tell you that the "feeling of self worth" is a psychological imprint of when you recieved love/respect as a child. As I said this feeling of expected respect/love I speak of does not have to ever come from a real person. This dispute really is trivial. What you call "feeling of self worth" I call "respect/love from a source that may not be real". I did mention that I was speaking in psychological terms however.
as to Premise 2 Well let me translate this to you from what you said about the first argument. Anotherwords, people play an rpg progressing towards the end as if they are going to have some type of massive orgasim when they reach the end. (this is a metaphor not logic) Needless to say they are almost always dissapointed. I can't think of many games where I felt fulfilled after beating them as opposed to dissapointed that it was over. Unless you disagree with this sentiment then your problem is again not with my premise but in the way its worded.
as to premise 3 and 4 Again replace "respect" with "self worth" if it makes you happy... The argument is still the same...
as to premise 5 I think you are misreading the argument, the result of what I have said is that if a game takes 3 years to construct then it takes 3 months for someone to get bored of it... That would be 12x and was the case in at least one game that I know of, many others I know of were similar, so I just rounded it to "more than 10x". The second part is to say that in order to sustain a players fun level with extended content then they would have to have a staff 10x as powerful as the avg mmo maker uses to develop the game to begin with to continually add content.
as to premise 6 What I had specifically said is that setbacks are ONLY accepted when they know that setback will be there if they do a certain action. The only reason then, that they would do that action is if the rewards make the risk worth it. By accept the setback I mean not sit there flailing arms for 20 minutes after it happens. An example of this in every day life is if you are a teenager and you respect your parents (something not nessecary in a inatimate object) then if they warn you not to do something and you do it anyways, you will not go bezerk at your parents for punishing you when you KNEW ahead of time that would happen.
Btw Most people are too dense to ever accept any idea that isn't their own therefore if I want to succeed with a succesful idea Ill have to do it myself.
as to premise 7 this really isn't even a dispute, I THINK what you are trying to say is that the player has no way of calculating the risk which really isnt true because in most games he does. Also none of the things you mentioned are nessecary to a pvp game. Furthermore the players assesment of risk will naturally progress as he gains more real world experience in the game. But I never said the player had to be able to calculate the risk correctly. That is not nessecary to this argument.
In conclusion, I think either you have failed to realize what I am saying or I am failing to communicate it effectively. I will try to make my points more undeniably clear. Also you make many generalizations and assumptions in your post with no basis due to bias. Calm down. I can tell you that any defensiveness/anger/fear I have comes from the knowledge that most people commonly ignore what is plainly true in favor of doing whatever makes them feel good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
-As to Premise 1 Your basically just saying the same thing I am without knowing it. I should have known better than to treat this as common knowledge (no offense) but psychologists will tell you that the "feeling of self worth" is a psychological imprint of when you recieved love/respect as a child. As I said this feeling of expected respect/love I speak of does not have to ever come from a real person. This dispute really is trivial. What you call "feeling of self worth" I call "respect/love from a source that may not be real". I did mention that I was speaking in psychological terms however.
Then in the future when you try to come off as being knowledgeable in a given topic be more specific, don't dumb yourself down if you are looking to net like responses. If you meant 'reward' in place of 'respect' then your statement would have made more sense. For one can have self-repect and not give it or want it from others. And it still has no bearing on your overall agenda. None taken BTW.
-As to Premise 2 Well let me translate this to you from what you said about the first argument. Anotherwords, people play an rpg progressing towards the end as if they are going to have some type of massive orgasim when they reach the end. (this is a metaphor not logic) Needless to say they are almost always dissapointed. I can't think of many games where I felt fulfilled after beating them as opposed to dissapointed that it was over. Unless you disagree with this sentiment then your problem is again not with my premise but in the way its worded.
Like I've been trying to point out all along. Your views from this premise are based off what you have experienced in these types of games, that is not logic. There are others who are fully content to continue playing these games. This is where the term 'classic' comes from. Some people even dedicate websites to these games. Some people are even out there who have never played a mmorpg period.
But to get back to the case at hand these two premises have no bearing on what you are trying to prove in your topic:
Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based.
I didn't see games in your topic....
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Ok each of these premises could be broken down into several smaller ones but rather than have 30 odd of them I just kept them in related paragraphs together. The point of organizing arguments this way is that if you accept that all premises are true then you CANNOT deny the conclusion (unless the argument is invalid for some reason which would be something obvious and wouldn't be argued about) Therefore the only way to have a valid opinion against the argument is to dispute one of the premises.
EDIT: DONT POST IN THIS THREAD WITHOUT READING THE ARGUMENT THAT IS REALLY SELFISH AND IMMATURE
People can respond to other posts in the thread without regard to the original. If you think that's selfish and immature, you'd hate the e-mail lists I am on.
But I don't think your premises are true to begin with, so the validity of your argument is a moot point.
Premise 1: The game aspect of any video game (ie not the social aspect) is fun in psychological terms because the player enjoys approaching a point where they will be respected for their accomplishments, although not by any real or specific person.
Premise 2: Upon reaching that point, the sought after respect hardly ever manifests itself in reality for the majority of players. (I E through other real people recognizing the players achievments) At this point the game ceases to be fun.
Most of the people I know have their own in-game goals that aren't dictated by what impresses other people, real or otherwise. Lots of people I know in EQ are still working on Velious and Luclin content and are damned proud of their accomplishments, even though what they are getting/doing is "crap" compared to current content.
A lot of people, particularly people my age, who are the majority of the players that I associate with, are entirely self-motivated, and a good portion of those people are first and foremost socializers/explorers
Premise 3: The end point is reached when the player sees that additional effort will not progress him towards recieving more respect. In single player games this is when the game is beat because there is nothing respectable about doing that which you have already done. Single player games are given replayability by allowing for multiple drastically different ways of playing the game succesfully.
And that is also how MMORPGs allow for replayability. Let's take EQ for instance. My husband spent TWO solid years saying, "Let me just accomplish this one thing, and I will be at end game. " Every step he made forward brought another step closer. Maybe today it was finishing this one quest. Maybe next week it would be seeing a new zone. Maybe the week after that he'd be just two AAs away from some fun new ability. There are multiple ways to feel that you have succeeded, and if you get to the end of one, there's always another avenue to explore.
And he got a lot of respect for being able to play his class better than most other people, and that only increased over time, as he met more people and moved into new content.
Premise 4: However, different ways of playing a game which are still very similar do not acheive this goal. For example if the sole difference in an rpg between a melee character and say a gun character is the picture of the weapon and maybe a 2 second animation than it is not different enough to make the game fun to play again. In MMORPG's this means that the end point mentioned in Premise 3 can be reached before the game is anywhere near completed. For example in AO where the only thing in the game that changes at all between level 2 and 200 are numbers. Bottom line, trite tricks are not succesful in stretching a small amount of real content into a much larger amount of content for the purpose of making the game fun longer.
In my own experience, again in EQ, playing through as a mage or an enchanter or a cleric or a shadowknight are all different games. I have, in fact, played different characters of the same class to high level, and taken different paths to get there. In a vast and varied game world, you can find new ways to get where you are going by taken routes off the beaten path, which gives you a sense of accomplishment in simply having done it your own way.
Premise 5: Players consume or advance through static precreated game content at an average rate of more than 10 times that which it takes to create it. This means that in order to sustain the fun level of a mmorpg just based on single player type static content you would need more than 10x the man hours than it took to make the game to begin with. I do not believe this is cost effective, and obviously neither do mmorpg developers as is evidence by their attempted use of cheap tricks to extend game content.
This assumes some kind of linear advancement. Who is to say that someone who spends several weeks working on a long and difficult tradeskilling quest (like the Coldain prayer shawls, for those who know EQ) is not advancing? His tradeskills are going up. He's working toward a good item. He's probably got his guild involved. Maybe he's working with someone else on gathering the parts. Only people who see advancement strictly in terms of "what level am I" and "what can I kill" run through content at that pace. Other people, probably the vast majority of people, play through at a much slower rate.
Premise 6: Following from all before, the only way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun is to have the player encounter setbacks or slow the player down. However to do this at any time when the player did not expect or have control over it is what psychologists call random punishment, and is about as far away from fun as you can get. To give the setback when the player DOES expect it is acceptable but usually just means that the player will avoid doing whatever it is the player will be setback for. The only time when a player will do something which might set him back is when the possible gains are worth the risk. This is gambling.
Premise 7: The only entity to date in video games unpredictable enough so that the player will not just assume he can beat it (and therefore dieing to it would be random punsihment) or that he has no chance against it (so he will just avoid it), and can retain this unpredictability through a near infinite amount of interactions, is another player. Also the nature of the pvp can not be to limit the players choice of action to the point where PVP becomes predictable.
That's not true. In a sufficiently complex AI-encounter, there are so many things that can go wrong (and possibly so many different things going on at once) that you can't ever be sure that you are going to win, if you are playing at a level appropriate for the level of your character. And often, at least in EQ, the rewards of a difficult raid are worth the chance of losing horribly. There's nothing random about winning. There's nothing random about losing. Either everyone is doing their job, or they are not, and that's that.
Premise 8: If people's perception of a gamble is that the risk is too great for the reward, then they will simply avoid the gamble. People's perception's will quickly move close to reality, but they will probably always overestimate their chances of winning somewhat. (The percieved chance of winning * the expected or average gain must be greater than the percieved chance of losing * the expected or average loss)
Losing in PvP seems utterly pointless to me, and something to ALWAYS be avoided. I have plenty of other things to do without worrying about being ambushed by someone else who has decided that they are bored. It's just not fun to fight other real people, and knowing that some real person out there is deliberately trying to kill me just pisses me off. Period.
Premise 9: To minimize the sting of the setback to the player, the player should immediately be placed back on the normal track to gaining status in the game rather than suffer death specific time delays. If long death specific time delays are given, the association between them and the expected setback for losing becomes loose.
Conclusion: The only way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun in an MMORPG is to have a PVP Based MMORPG where players take somewhat fair gambles by choice on their battles between each other.
~*~ neschria Bludgeoner of Bunnies
... This is where I draw the line: __________________.
No offence but your whole logic is like Windows ME -- sounds great on paper but works halfassed.
Your whole argument loses steam as soon as someone compares the size of a population on PvP server and on a Carebear server.
If, according to you, people will try to do things that they consider fun and there are more people playing on carebear servers, then the logical conclusion is that most people do not find PvP fun. And if most people don't find PvP fun, then a game based on PvP will never be fun.
As for everything else, you can argue until you turn blue and bring up 20 more premises but it still won't change the fact that most people do not find PvP in MMORPGs fun.
As a side note: technically, MMORPGs do not have an end point. If you play a massive multiplayer online roleplaying game just to max out your toon's stats then you should save yourself the subscription fee and play Dungeon Siege.
Originally posted by Ramonski7 Originally posted by Kriminal99 -As to Premise 1 Your basically just saying the same thing I am without knowing it. I should have known better than to treat this as common knowledge (no offense) but psychologists will tell you that the "feeling of self worth" is a psychological imprint of when you recieved love/respect as a child. As I said this feeling of expected respect/love I speak of does not have to ever come from a real person. This dispute really is trivial. What you call "feeling of self worth" I call "respect/love from a source that may not be real". I did mention that I was speaking in psychological terms however. Then in the future when you try to come off as being knowledgeable in a given topic be more specific, don't dumb yourself down if you are looking to net like responses. If you meant 'reward' in place of 'respect' then your statement would have made more sense. For one can have self-repect and not give it or want it from others. And it still has no bearing on your overall agenda. None taken BTW. -As to Premise 2 Well let me translate this to you from what you said about the first argument. Anotherwords, people play an rpg progressing towards the end as if they are going to have some type of massive orgasim when they reach the end. (this is a metaphor not logic) Needless to say they are almost always dissapointed. I can't think of many games where I felt fulfilled after beating them as opposed to dissapointed that it was over. Unless you disagree with this sentiment then your problem is again not with my premise but in the way its worded. Like I've been trying to point out all along. Your views from this premise are based off what you have experienced in these types of games, that is not logic. There are others who are fully content to continue playing these games. This is where the term 'classic' comes from. Some people even dedicate websites to these games. Some people are even out there who have never played a mmorpg period. But to get back to the case at hand these two premises have no bearing on what you are trying to prove in your topic: Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based. I didn't see games in your topic....
by classic games I think you are talking about 1 player games. Like say fallout is a classic. I love fallout. I own all computer fallout games. I would enjoy making a fallout site. However I cannot play fallout twice in a row as it is the exact same way and have it be fun... If the game had like I said many drastically different ways of playing I could play it more than once. Then lets take say Star Wars KOTOR This is also a decent game although I would say not as good as fallout. BUT I can play it longer than fallout because more of my brain processes are being used when playing it and are not left to get used to all parts of the game so that it gets boring. (I E its faster paced) but that still doesn't make it infinitely fun.
Now after I get bored with this game, I might shelf it only to reinstall and play again 6 months or a year down the road... I don't think this helps MMORPGS.
I have generalized this idea to all people because I have spoken to many other people who share the same experiences. You claim that this premise is a weak inductive argument, but to deny it is to say that people can play a game 100 times in a row and still have as much fun the 100th time as they did the first.
Games are only used as a step in the reasoning. I was taking this sentiment that a game can get boring and applying the idea to an mmorpg. There is no end of an mmorpg where you have "beat the game" but there is certainly a point where it gets boring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
UO was a great game at one time because of the balance in the game and the great pvp. Everybody I knew who played it loved it and was addicted to it. The pvp made it so nobody ever got bored because pvp is always gonna be different and its not an automated process like you will see fighting a monster, ect. It was a very popular game and it all changed.....why?? If you were a UOer you know what Im talking about. The only reason a game is gonna change this way is money...why else would it change? My question is... in what way did the carebearers change an entire game to make it what it is today which is horrible. And i do agree that to make an MMORPG fun it must be pvp based, because the carebears are gonna eventually get bored fightin monsters all day every day.
Ramon Im not sure if your saying that you agree with that much
or if you are saying that I should have just said that because you assume my sole purpose was just to make my opinion heard.
But either way we both know many people wouldnt agree with that, my argument is as complicated as it is to address the people who wouldn not agree, and my goal in posting this argument is to refine it further by finding people who do not agree and have a logical reason why.
I do not get defensive or angry when people come up with logical arguments against mine, this is what I want. I get angry when people, as they often do, throw out all sense or logic in favor of saying whatever makes them feel good...
TMC I agree, but there are ways that pvp could exist that there would be no carebears in the game and it could still keep the game fun.
At Heartless: There are many purely pvp based games that are succesful. Most games that have a "Pvp server" the pvp is really watered down or boring, and the player has little control over combat. Some games that are pvp based anyways, the most hardcore PVP server is the most populated. All of this is irrelevant because the pvp described in my argument has yet to be created in any game to date.... And your side note? MMORPGS eventually get pretty damn boring. Thats when the game is "over". It has nothing to do with maxing stats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
UO fell because it got old. It didn't fall from grace because of PvPers. It was time to move on, but there are some that play even to this day(me for example). UO succeeded because it was the first of its kind. A rarity in that time. Now with everyone pulluting the genre, it takes a special kind of game to spark an interest in players.
If and when that happens is known. So many players have invested so much time in other mmorpgs that the thought of giving up their characters is taboo. And with so many old schoolers from the old UO days around, any company will have their hands full trying to please them.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
I was writing a response to this thread and went back to the original post to pull a quote from it so that I would not misrepresent the original poster. It was then that I found that he had actually gone in and edited his original post, changing the wording and, by extension, the intent of his premises.
Kriminal, I enjoy a good clean argument as much as the next guy, but it is intellectually dishonest to alter your original post. If you needed to clarify a point or two, do it in a subsequent post. You have implored several people in this thread to either pick a premise and argue its merits or not post. To then go back and change those premises is unfair and bordering on cravenness.
If you wish your arguments to be given any serious weight, you need to let them stand or fall. Buttress them with follow-ons, but do not change them after the gauntlet has been cast down.
Kriminal I havnt played an MMORPG for over a year now because Im just tired of all the bs that we are discussing. Gotta game out right now with good pvp and not a bullshit pvp server where like u said is watered down.? And also a game that is all out pvp and not consensual? I always thought that was funny though i never witnessed it......."Can I attack you?" LOL
tmc exactly im the same way, I used to play them alot and then I realized they just flat out arent fun most of the time and further even realized why...
LOL thats not the only thing consensual pvp can mean, I mean lets say you had like some game with a unrestricted area then anyone who steps outside it knows damn well they (or should know ahead of time) they will be randomly attacked.
@ Koltrain, I didn't change what my argument was saying. From arguing with another poster, I realized that using psychological terms to describe an event might be misunderstood (it was misunderstood by one person) might not be the best way to talk to the average poster. What I changed was not relevant to the argument. Further more while there might be some reason why one shouldnt change their original ideas (if thats even what I had done, and I can't think what this reason might possibly be) when dealing with people who respect the ideas, its just flat out nessecary when dealing with the people on this bored who don't even read half of the first post before posting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Okay... for starters, pvp BASED would suck wet ass through a coffee straw. That would ruin the atmosphere of the game before it get's out of beta. You gotta have other social, or semi-social, elements in the game. UO sucks after 4 years.... yeah.... 4 YEARS... but it is still popular for the most part because of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is what makes the game hot or not.
All pvp would really suck with the community thing. Give players alternitives. They could, craft the weapons and arms for ppl to kill each other with, or be one of the proud and few dying constantly because some one like me has a char that makes the stuff that the other chars uses..... You catch all that?
Anyway. I play Endlessages, for about 7 months now... I have yet to get into a pvp match but the game remains fun. I know how alotof you ppl out there feel because I live for the pvp experience most of the time. But you can't knock a game because it is not designed AROUND pvp. If you want that then check out Fung Wan... gonan be the closest you get beside Eve.
Life is what you do untill you die... so have fun. :P
Life is what you do untill you die... so have fun. :P
And there is logic to everything, you cannot say there is no logic to something if something was illogical then by definition of logic it could not exist. Logic is simply to look at the properties of somethings existence and go from there.
I am not usually one to get in on these discussions, however this statement hit me as... well odd. You say there is logic to everything? I have to disagree. By nature Quantum Physics is, if nothing else, completely illogical. An electron can be both a particle and a wave at the same time, yet a particle and a wave have vastly different properties and are mutually exclusive, so how can this be true. And if you are thinking to yourself "Well, its not true" I tell you it is, as it has been well documented. This is just scratching the surface of the illogicalness of Quantum Physics. Almost any mathematical model can be used to describe the quantum world, and all are valid as long as they explain what experiments show. Yet, many of these models contradict each other, but all are, and have to be, by nature correct. In the quantum world if A = B, and B = C... A does not have to = C.
Secondly, you say logic is to look at the properties of something existence and then go from there. I hate to tell you, but that is science.
Koltrane, he left the realm of entering a balanced debate from the very getgo...and every subsequent post has been laced with condescension and belittlement. There is no integrity to seek in the methods employed.
Xeavious... PVP based doesn't mean no tradeskills or anything else... PVP based games let me see here...
UO (funny you mentioned a pvp based game in your statement)
Shadowbane
DAOC
Neocron
Many others and many others in development...
Btw these are some of the most succesful games...
At Zauveer you are trying to give logic properties above and beyond what it is. To say that say 2 + 2 equals 4 is nessecitated by the definition of 2 and the definition of 4. To say that I am bigger than JOe and joe is bigger than schmoe, therefore I am bigger than schmoe is nessecitated by the definition of bigger and all other involved words and objects. This is logic. A logic puzzle is something that you can read over once and get hardly anything out of it, but then consider it carefully and realize there is much more information there than you initially realized. Life is like a logic puzzle, there is more information in everything you learn than is commonly picked up if you choose to search it.
I am familiar with some parts of quantum physics. Quantum physics does not contradict the nature of logic. The answer to your particle question is that our definition of what a particle is is obviously wrong... because it can act as a wave... our definition of a wave is wrong because at very high frequencies it can act as a particle. Therefore when we say something is a particle we are refering to something which the definition of the word particle does not accurately describe. A non quantum physics example of this is this statement taken from the song "Rollout" by ludacris:
Rollin' on twenties WITH THE TOP BACK...
Obviously to roll on the number twenty is logically imposible because twenty is a number. He is not referring to that definition of the "twentie's" however is he?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
At Heartless: There are many purely pvp based games that are succesful. Most games that have a "Pvp server" the pvp is really watered down or boring, and the player has little control over combat. Some games that are pvp based anyways, the most hardcore PVP server is the most populated. All of this is irrelevant because the pvp described in my argument has yet to be created in any game to date.... And your side note? MMORPGS eventually get pretty damn boring. Thats when the game is "over". It has nothing to do with maxing stats.
Name at least one.
If your PvP has yet to be created and it's pointless for me to talk about it, than isn't it pointless for you to talk about it? It's kind of like dividing the meat of a deer you haven't killed yet.
Everything gets pretty damn boring if you have too much of it. If you're going to power play any game for 12 hours a day, then it will get boring fast. Even PvP gets boring after a while. However, If you play the game for a few hours a week, it will take you that much longer to reach that boring stage. Even if the game has no PvP.
I understand that pvp based games are some of the most succesful, but What I'm trying to get you guys to realize is that a game does not have be pvp based to be enjoyable. Like I mentioned before, Endless Ages. 7 months, not one pvp duel or whatever, and still having fun.
UO was pvp based yes... but then again it wasn't after they added tram and shit... but it still grew, and continues to grow as we speak. I say that its all about the feeling the game gives you. I used to get a rush back in the day when I steped out of Brit on my way to bucs Den to solo a few reds. I used to get a rush when I went out with my red and camped moongates, brit gate being a personal fav... :P I used to get a rush... but UO is really not for the traditional pvper like myself anymore... it''s no longer about kill or tricks of the trade... it's all about items now. Gell, I think I was the only one on GL beside Permafrost that still used pots.
Anyway... it is not loicl to think that a game has to be pvp based to be fun... but it is logical to think that agame has to have a good pvp system in order to be fun. Let's face it.... if you don't like the way battles work in a game, you not gonan wanna play it much right?
A guy on Fung Wan... a total newb... attempted to kill me for about an hour straight after I got a pk skull for ressing a friend. He obviously loved the way the battles were played out or he would have quit or something... I don't know. am I getting through to ya? Am I coming in clearly?
Life is what you do untill you die... so have fun. :P
Life is what you do untill you die... so have fun. :P
Originally posted by Kriminal99 @ Koltrain, I didn't change what my argument was saying. From arguing with another poster, I realized that using psychological terms to describe an event might be misunderstood (it was misunderstood by one person) might not be the best way to talk to the average poster. What I changed was not relevant to the argument. Further more while there might be some reason why one shouldnt change their original ideas (if thats even what I had done, and I can't think what this reason might possibly be) when dealing with people who respect the ideas, its just flat out nessecary when dealing with the people on this bored who don't even read half of the first post before posting.
While it may not have been your intent to change the meaning of your post, when you alter the wording, arguments based upon that wording may no longer apply. Regardless of your intentions, it is an unfair tactic. People who don't read posts fully are easily detected, as their arguments are not cogent or germane within the context of the thread. I have had my problem with those who post before reading (even by their own admission) and have found that the other serious posters have as little use for it as I do, i.e. those who matter know who is just knee jerking.
If you feel the need to clarify, even through rewording, then do it in a subsequent post. It is one thing to edit your original post to correct spelling or typographical errors, but to rewrite several premises upon which the entire argument is based is wrong, especially after the thread has taken on a life of its own and the discussion is in full swing. It cheats both those who oppose you and those who support you.
You cannot ask people to stick to your original argument if you are going to change the original form of it in midstream. You have obviously put a lot of thought into this topic and have spelled out your premises in great detail. Whether I agree or disagree with your conclusion, it cheapens the argument to come in after the fact and rewrite the whole thing.
As such, I refuse to argue the point within this thread. (collective sigh of relief from the MMORPG.com regulars who know how long winded I can be) I will say this, however. I believe Ianubisi has read your posts. He is merely a man of few words who makes his point clearly and succinctly. I wish i had his gift for brevity.
UO (funny you mentioned a pvp based game in your statement)
Unfortunately UO is NOT PvP based. It was a open-ended mmorpg with PvP elements. And it was all good until some pimp-faced brats with anger problems decided to start camping entrances to f-over anyone who tried getting into dungeons. Then the biggest nerf in all online gaming history came when they split the world in two........
Sad so very sad....Had to live out life in felucca as a hemit. People avoided it like the plague. Oh well.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
I played Neocron for the longest time and never got bored of it before they altered the pvp to make the gambles in it terribly worthless. And everyone that played it loved it before they did this...
UO is still running after a rediculous amount of time considering how dated the play style is...
Neither of these games follow all of the conditions in my argument, only some of them.
And they stayed fun perpetually anyways, however they also created stress and whiny people on the forums who never left but continued to complain whenever they lost a fight.
Yes it is irrelevant to my argument to discuss these games, but since everyone keeps responding to my argument with " I dunt lak teh PVP, nooneh laks teh PVP!!!111oneone+one = 2"....
By Koltrain:
While it may not have been your intent to change the meaning of your post, when you alter the wording, arguments based upon that wording may no longer apply. Regardless of your intentions, it is an unfair tactic. People who don't read posts fully are easily detected, as their arguments are not cogent or germane within the context of the thread. I have had my problem with those who post before reading (even by their own admission) and have found that the other serious posters have as little use for it as I do, i.e. those who matter know who is just knee jerking.
If you feel the need to clarify, even through rewording, then do it in a subsequent post. It is one thing to edit your original post to correct spelling or typographical errors, but to rewrite several premises upon which the entire argument is based is wrong, especially after the thread has taken on a life of its own and the discussion is in full swing. It cheats both those who oppose you and those who support you.
You cannot ask people to stick to your original argument if you are going to change the original form of it in midstream. You have obviously put a lot of thought into this topic and have spelled out your premises in great detail. Whether I agree or disagree with your conclusion, it cheapens the argument to come in after the fact and rewrite the whole thing.
There are no arguments based on the previos wording. Thats what I just said. In fact for that matter I didnt even remove what I had in the premises before. I just put the more simply worded version first, then posted what I had said before after and noted that it was not nessecary to the argument. Does common sense not dictate that if I changed the actual meaning of a premise then it would no longer support the argument?
Furthermore I would think that by changing my argument due to something that someone said about it would be showing respect for that persons idea, and if that happened before the next person came into the argument then it doesn't matter to that person does it? Those that were reading know I changed it because of a discussion with another poster. Those that don't never knew how it was orginally worded. You came in and happened to see it changed, I don't know why you have some kind of hangup about this it makes no sense to me that there is anything wrong with changing an argument. If you were going to address that which I changed, and I changed it to what you said then that simply means that I agree with you.
The whole point of doing this is to come up with better ideas not to keep tally of who was right or wrong. I don't care about that. But nevertheless no ideas crucial to the argument were changed...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Comments
Im not going to dignify the stuff at the beginning of your post with a response but to your disputes:
as to Premise 1 Your basically just saying the same thing I am without knowing it. I should have known better than to treat this as common knowledge (no offense) but psychologists will tell you that the "feeling of self worth" is a psychological imprint of when you recieved love/respect as a child. As I said this feeling of expected respect/love I speak of does not have to ever come from a real person. This dispute really is trivial. What you call "feeling of self worth" I call "respect/love from a source that may not be real". I did mention that I was speaking in psychological terms however.
as to Premise 2 Well let me translate this to you from what you said about the first argument. Anotherwords, people play an rpg progressing towards the end as if they are going to have some type of massive orgasim when they reach the end. (this is a metaphor not logic) Needless to say they are almost always dissapointed. I can't think of many games where I felt fulfilled after beating them as opposed to dissapointed that it was over. Unless you disagree with this sentiment then your problem is again not with my premise but in the way its worded.
as to premise 3 and 4 Again replace "respect" with "self worth" if it makes you happy... The argument is still the same...
as to premise 5 I think you are misreading the argument, the result of what I have said is that if a game takes 3 years to construct then it takes 3 months for someone to get bored of it... That would be 12x and was the case in at least one game that I know of, many others I know of were similar, so I just rounded it to "more than 10x". The second part is to say that in order to sustain a players fun level with extended content then they would have to have a staff 10x as powerful as the avg mmo maker uses to develop the game to begin with to continually add content.
as to premise 6 What I had specifically said is that setbacks are ONLY accepted when they know that setback will be there if they do a certain action. The only reason then, that they would do that action is if the rewards make the risk worth it. By accept the setback I mean not sit there flailing arms for 20 minutes after it happens. An example of this in every day life is if you are a teenager and you respect your parents (something not nessecary in a inatimate object) then if they warn you not to do something and you do it anyways, you will not go bezerk at your parents for punishing you when you KNEW ahead of time that would happen.
Btw Most people are too dense to ever accept any idea that isn't their own therefore if I want to succeed with a succesful idea Ill have to do it myself.
as to premise 7 this really isn't even a dispute, I THINK what you are trying to say is that the player has no way of calculating the risk which really isnt true because in most games he does. Also none of the things you mentioned are nessecary to a pvp game. Furthermore the players assesment of risk will naturally progress as he gains more real world experience in the game. But I never said the player had to be able to calculate the risk correctly. That is not nessecary to this argument.
In conclusion, I think either you have failed to realize what I am saying or I am failing to communicate it effectively. I will try to make my points more undeniably clear. Also you make many generalizations and assumptions in your post with no basis due to bias. Calm down. I can tell you that any defensiveness/anger/fear I have comes from the knowledge that most people commonly ignore what is plainly true in favor of doing whatever makes them feel good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Originally posted by Kriminal99
-As to Premise 1 Your basically just saying the same thing I am without knowing it. I should have known better than to treat this as common knowledge (no offense) but psychologists will tell you that the "feeling of self worth" is a psychological imprint of when you recieved love/respect as a child. As I said this feeling of expected respect/love I speak of does not have to ever come from a real person. This dispute really is trivial. What you call "feeling of self worth" I call "respect/love from a source that may not be real". I did mention that I was speaking in psychological terms however.
Then in the future when you try to come off as being knowledgeable in a given topic be more specific, don't dumb yourself down if you are looking to net like responses. If you meant 'reward' in place of 'respect' then your statement would have made more sense. For one can have self-repect and not give it or want it from others. And it still has no bearing on your overall agenda. None taken BTW.
-As to Premise 2 Well let me translate this to you from what you said about the first argument. Anotherwords, people play an rpg progressing towards the end as if they are going to have some type of massive orgasim when they reach the end. (this is a metaphor not logic) Needless to say they are almost always dissapointed. I can't think of many games where I felt fulfilled after beating them as opposed to dissapointed that it was over. Unless you disagree with this sentiment then your problem is again not with my premise but in the way its worded.
Like I've been trying to point out all along. Your views from this premise are based off what you have experienced in these types of games, that is not logic. There are others who are fully content to continue playing these games. This is where the term 'classic' comes from. Some people even dedicate websites to these games. Some people are even out there who have never played a mmorpg period.
But to get back to the case at hand these two premises have no bearing on what you are trying to prove in your topic:
I didn't see games in your topic....
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
~*~
neschria
Bludgeoner of Bunnies
...
This is where I draw the line: __________________.
No offence but your whole logic is like Windows ME -- sounds great on paper but works halfassed.
Your whole argument loses steam as soon as someone compares the size of a population on PvP server and on a Carebear server.
If, according to you, people will try to do things that they consider fun and there are more people playing on carebear servers, then the logical conclusion is that most people do not find PvP fun. And if most people don't find PvP fun, then a game based on PvP will never be fun.
As for everything else, you can argue until you turn blue and bring up 20 more premises but it still won't change the fact that most people do not find PvP in MMORPGs fun.
As a side note: technically, MMORPGs do not have an end point. If you play a massive multiplayer online roleplaying game just to max out your toon's stats then you should save yourself the subscription fee and play Dungeon Siege.
by classic games I think you are talking about 1 player games. Like say fallout is a classic. I love fallout. I own all computer fallout games. I would enjoy making a fallout site. However I cannot play fallout twice in a row as it is the exact same way and have it be fun... If the game had like I said many drastically different ways of playing I could play it more than once. Then lets take say Star Wars KOTOR This is also a decent game although I would say not as good as fallout. BUT I can play it longer than fallout because more of my brain processes are being used when playing it and are not left to get used to all parts of the game so that it gets boring. (I E its faster paced) but that still doesn't make it infinitely fun.
Now after I get bored with this game, I might shelf it only to reinstall and play again 6 months or a year down the road... I don't think this helps MMORPGS.
I have generalized this idea to all people because I have spoken to many other people who share the same experiences. You claim that this premise is a weak inductive argument, but to deny it is to say that people can play a game 100 times in a row and still have as much fun the 100th time as they did the first.
Games are only used as a step in the reasoning. I was taking this sentiment that a game can get boring and applying the idea to an mmorpg. There is no end of an mmorpg where you have "beat the game" but there is certainly a point where it gets boring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Kriminal99
To tell you the truth your topic is filled with unnessary fluff, when the whole point of your topic can be wrapped up in these statements:
1)People play games to have fun and get rewards/respect
2)People are disappointed with end-game rewards/respect
3)Developers are wasting time trying to keep up demand for players to have fun, get rewards/respect.
4)Companies are wasting money on expansions for players to get rewards/respect
5)Players need more than fluff to have fun
6)Developers need a solution to slow players down and keep them happy
7)Holy answer to make players and devs happy: PvP
8)Make PvP acceptable to the masses
9)PvP is the only expansion a game will ever need to keep: Kriminal99 happy
Conclusion:
Why did it take this long beating around the bush to get to this point.........
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Because pedants like to hear themselves talk.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
UO was a great game at one time because of the balance in the game and the great pvp. Everybody I knew who played it loved it and was addicted to it. The pvp made it so nobody ever got bored because pvp is always gonna be different and its not an automated process like you will see fighting a monster, ect. It was a very popular game and it all changed.....why?? If you were a UOer you know what Im talking about. The only reason a game is gonna change this way is money...why else would it change? My question is... in what way did the carebearers change an entire game to make it what it is today which is horrible. And i do agree that to make an MMORPG fun it must be pvp based, because the carebears are gonna eventually get bored fightin monsters all day every day.
Ramon Im not sure if your saying that you agree with that much
or if you are saying that I should have just said that because you assume my sole purpose was just to make my opinion heard.
But either way we both know many people wouldnt agree with that, my argument is as complicated as it is to address the people who wouldn not agree, and my goal in posting this argument is to refine it further by finding people who do not agree and have a logical reason why.
I do not get defensive or angry when people come up with logical arguments against mine, this is what I want. I get angry when people, as they often do, throw out all sense or logic in favor of saying whatever makes them feel good...
TMC I agree, but there are ways that pvp could exist that there would be no carebears in the game and it could still keep the game fun.
At Heartless: There are many purely pvp based games that are succesful. Most games that have a "Pvp server" the pvp is really watered down or boring, and the player has little control over combat. Some games that are pvp based anyways, the most hardcore PVP server is the most populated. All of this is irrelevant because the pvp described in my argument has yet to be created in any game to date.... And your side note? MMORPGS eventually get pretty damn boring. Thats when the game is "over". It has nothing to do with maxing stats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
UO fell because it got old. It didn't fall from grace because of PvPers. It was time to move on, but there are some that play even to this day(me for example). UO succeeded because it was the first of its kind. A rarity in that time. Now with everyone pulluting the genre, it takes a special kind of game to spark an interest in players.
If and when that happens is known. So many players have invested so much time in other mmorpgs that the thought of giving up their characters is taboo. And with so many old schoolers from the old UO days around, any company will have their hands full trying to please them.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
I was writing a response to this thread and went back to the original post to pull a quote from it so that I would not misrepresent the original poster. It was then that I found that he had actually gone in and edited his original post, changing the wording and, by extension, the intent of his premises.
Kriminal, I enjoy a good clean argument as much as the next guy, but it is intellectually dishonest to alter your original post. If you needed to clarify a point or two, do it in a subsequent post. You have implored several people in this thread to either pick a premise and argue its merits or not post. To then go back and change those premises is unfair and bordering on cravenness.
If you wish your arguments to be given any serious weight, you need to let them stand or fall. Buttress them with follow-ons, but do not change them after the gauntlet has been cast down.
-----
Old timer.
tmc exactly im the same way, I used to play them alot and then I realized they just flat out arent fun most of the time and further even realized why...
LOL thats not the only thing consensual pvp can mean, I mean lets say you had like some game with a unrestricted area then anyone who steps outside it knows damn well they (or should know ahead of time) they will be randomly attacked.
@ Koltrain, I didn't change what my argument was saying. From arguing with another poster, I realized that using psychological terms to describe an event might be misunderstood (it was misunderstood by one person) might not be the best way to talk to the average poster. What I changed was not relevant to the argument. Further more while there might be some reason why one shouldnt change their original ideas (if thats even what I had done, and I can't think what this reason might possibly be) when dealing with people who respect the ideas, its just flat out nessecary when dealing with the people on this bored who don't even read half of the first post before posting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
yeah dude i just dont think most people agree with us on this topic. o well i will never be a carebear sorry to all u noobies that post here.
Okay... for starters, pvp BASED would suck wet ass through a coffee straw. That would ruin the atmosphere of the game before it get's out of beta. You gotta have other social, or semi-social, elements in the game. UO sucks after 4 years.... yeah.... 4 YEARS... but it is still popular for the most part because of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is what makes the game hot or not.
All pvp would really suck with the community thing. Give players alternitives. They could, craft the weapons and arms for ppl to kill each other with, or be one of the proud and few dying constantly because some one like me has a char that makes the stuff that the other chars uses..... You catch all that?
Anyway. I play Endlessages, for about 7 months now... I have yet to get into a pvp match but the game remains fun. I know how alotof you ppl out there feel because I live for the pvp experience most of the time. But you can't knock a game because it is not designed AROUND pvp. If you want that then check out Fung Wan... gonan be the closest you get beside Eve.
Life is what you do untill you die... so have fun. :P
Life is what you do untill you die... so have fun. :P
You are delusional. UO was pvp based, you ever play it?
I am not usually one to get in on these discussions, however this statement hit me as... well odd. You say there is logic to everything? I have to disagree. By nature Quantum Physics is, if nothing else, completely illogical. An electron can be both a particle and a wave at the same time, yet a particle and a wave have vastly different properties and are mutually exclusive, so how can this be true. And if you are thinking to yourself "Well, its not true" I tell you it is, as it has been well documented. This is just scratching the surface of the illogicalness of Quantum Physics. Almost any mathematical model can be used to describe the quantum world, and all are valid as long as they explain what experiments show. Yet, many of these models contradict each other, but all are, and have to be, by nature correct. In the quantum world if A = B, and B = C... A does not have to = C.
Secondly, you say logic is to look at the properties of something existence and then go from there. I hate to tell you, but that is science.
Koltrane, he left the realm of entering a balanced debate from the very getgo...and every subsequent post has been laced with condescension and belittlement. There is no integrity to seek in the methods employed.
Xeavious... PVP based doesn't mean no tradeskills or anything else... PVP based games let me see here...
UO (funny you mentioned a pvp based game in your statement)
Shadowbane
DAOC
Neocron
Many others and many others in development...
Btw these are some of the most succesful games...
At Zauveer you are trying to give logic properties above and beyond what it is. To say that say 2 + 2 equals 4 is nessecitated by the definition of 2 and the definition of 4. To say that I am bigger than JOe and joe is bigger than schmoe, therefore I am bigger than schmoe is nessecitated by the definition of bigger and all other involved words and objects. This is logic. A logic puzzle is something that you can read over once and get hardly anything out of it, but then consider it carefully and realize there is much more information there than you initially realized. Life is like a logic puzzle, there is more information in everything you learn than is commonly picked up if you choose to search it.
I am familiar with some parts of quantum physics. Quantum physics does not contradict the nature of logic. The answer to your particle question is that our definition of what a particle is is obviously wrong... because it can act as a wave... our definition of a wave is wrong because at very high frequencies it can act as a particle. Therefore when we say something is a particle we are refering to something which the definition of the word particle does not accurately describe. A non quantum physics example of this is this statement taken from the song "Rollout" by ludacris:
Rollin' on twenties WITH THE TOP BACK...
Obviously to roll on the number twenty is logically imposible because twenty is a number. He is not referring to that definition of the "twentie's" however is he?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Name at least one.
If your PvP has yet to be created and it's pointless for me to talk about it, than isn't it pointless for you to talk about it? It's kind of like dividing the meat of a deer you haven't killed yet.
Everything gets pretty damn boring if you have too much of it. If you're going to power play any game for 12 hours a day, then it will get boring fast. Even PvP gets boring after a while. However, If you play the game for a few hours a week, it will take you that much longer to reach that boring stage. Even if the game has no PvP.
I understand that pvp based games are some of the most succesful, but What I'm trying to get you guys to realize is that a game does not have be pvp based to be enjoyable. Like I mentioned before, Endless Ages. 7 months, not one pvp duel or whatever, and still having fun.
UO was pvp based yes... but then again it wasn't after they added tram and shit... but it still grew, and continues to grow as we speak. I say that its all about the feeling the game gives you. I used to get a rush back in the day when I steped out of Brit on my way to bucs Den to solo a few reds. I used to get a rush when I went out with my red and camped moongates, brit gate being a personal fav... :P I used to get a rush... but UO is really not for the traditional pvper like myself anymore... it''s no longer about kill or tricks of the trade... it's all about items now. Gell, I think I was the only one on GL beside Permafrost that still used pots.
Anyway... it is not loicl to think that a game has to be pvp based to be fun... but it is logical to think that agame has to have a good pvp system in order to be fun. Let's face it.... if you don't like the way battles work in a game, you not gonan wanna play it much right?
A guy on Fung Wan... a total newb... attempted to kill me for about an hour straight after I got a pk skull for ressing a friend. He obviously loved the way the battles were played out or he would have quit or something... I don't know. am I getting through to ya? Am I coming in clearly?
Life is what you do untill you die... so have fun. :P
Life is what you do untill you die... so have fun. :P
While it may not have been your intent to change the meaning of your post, when you alter the wording, arguments based upon that wording may no longer apply. Regardless of your intentions, it is an unfair tactic. People who don't read posts fully are easily detected, as their arguments are not cogent or germane within the context of the thread. I have had my problem with those who post before reading (even by their own admission) and have found that the other serious posters have as little use for it as I do, i.e. those who matter know who is just knee jerking.
If you feel the need to clarify, even through rewording, then do it in a subsequent post. It is one thing to edit your original post to correct spelling or typographical errors, but to rewrite several premises upon which the entire argument is based is wrong, especially after the thread has taken on a life of its own and the discussion is in full swing. It cheats both those who oppose you and those who support you.
You cannot ask people to stick to your original argument if you are going to change the original form of it in midstream. You have obviously put a lot of thought into this topic and have spelled out your premises in great detail. Whether I agree or disagree with your conclusion, it cheapens the argument to come in after the fact and rewrite the whole thing.
As such, I refuse to argue the point within this thread. (collective sigh of relief from the MMORPG.com regulars who know how long winded I can be) I will say this, however. I believe Ianubisi has read your posts. He is merely a man of few words who makes his point clearly and succinctly. I wish i had his gift for brevity.
-----
Old timer.
Originally posted by Kriminal99
PVP based games let me see here...
UO (funny you mentioned a pvp based game in your statement)
Unfortunately UO is NOT PvP based. It was a open-ended mmorpg with PvP elements. And it was all good until some pimp-faced brats with anger problems decided to start camping entrances to f-over anyone who tried getting into dungeons. Then the biggest nerf in all online gaming history came when they split the world in two........
Sad so very sad....Had to live out life in felucca as a hemit. People avoided it like the plague. Oh well.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Name one what succesful pvp game?
uh I just did about one post ago...
I played Neocron for the longest time and never got bored of it before they altered the pvp to make the gambles in it terribly worthless. And everyone that played it loved it before they did this...
UO is still running after a rediculous amount of time considering how dated the play style is...
Neither of these games follow all of the conditions in my argument, only some of them.
And they stayed fun perpetually anyways, however they also created stress and whiny people on the forums who never left but continued to complain whenever they lost a fight.
Yes it is irrelevant to my argument to discuss these games, but since everyone keeps responding to my argument with " I dunt lak teh PVP, nooneh laks teh PVP!!!111oneone+one = 2"....
By Koltrain:
While it may not have been your intent to change the meaning of your post, when you alter the wording, arguments based upon that wording may no longer apply. Regardless of your intentions, it is an unfair tactic. People who don't read posts fully are easily detected, as their arguments are not cogent or germane within the context of the thread. I have had my problem with those who post before reading (even by their own admission) and have found that the other serious posters have as little use for it as I do, i.e. those who matter know who is just knee jerking.
If you feel the need to clarify, even through rewording, then do it in a subsequent post. It is one thing to edit your original post to correct spelling or typographical errors, but to rewrite several premises upon which the entire argument is based is wrong, especially after the thread has taken on a life of its own and the discussion is in full swing. It cheats both those who oppose you and those who support you.
You cannot ask people to stick to your original argument if you are going to change the original form of it in midstream. You have obviously put a lot of thought into this topic and have spelled out your premises in great detail. Whether I agree or disagree with your conclusion, it cheapens the argument to come in after the fact and rewrite the whole thing.
There are no arguments based on the previos wording. Thats what I just said. In fact for that matter I didnt even remove what I had in the premises before. I just put the more simply worded version first, then posted what I had said before after and noted that it was not nessecary to the argument. Does common sense not dictate that if I changed the actual meaning of a premise then it would no longer support the argument?
Furthermore I would think that by changing my argument due to something that someone said about it would be showing respect for that persons idea, and if that happened before the next person came into the argument then it doesn't matter to that person does it? Those that were reading know I changed it because of a discussion with another poster. Those that don't never knew how it was orginally worded. You came in and happened to see it changed, I don't know why you have some kind of hangup about this it makes no sense to me that there is anything wrong with changing an argument. If you were going to address that which I changed, and I changed it to what you said then that simply means that I agree with you.
The whole point of doing this is to come up with better ideas not to keep tally of who was right or wrong. I don't care about that. But nevertheless no ideas crucial to the argument were changed...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5