Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

We got enough Games. Give me a World.

123457

Comments

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    It's not a themepark issue. You can be a themepark and be a world. This us the case with daoc & EQ, heck even vanilla wow to a degree.

    The problem Is instancing. Everyone sat in cities queueing to go a dungeon, raid or tupperware pvp in their small groups. These games aren't really mmos, they are glorified lobby games, with a fairly open world leveling bit you "have" to grind out first
  • BadSpockBadSpock Somewhere, MIPosts: 7,974Member
    Originally posted by Neherun
    Originally posted by BadSpock

    Exactly.

    You know what I like to do in Skyrim these days?

    Sneak around cities and towns, stealing whatever isn't chained down, and assassinating NPCs in their sleep (or in the case of guards, while they are walking lol.)

    You know what Skyrim Online would look like?

    Oh, jeeze. I just wanted to come to this town and bank - but the tellers are all dead. The guards are all dead. OK let's try another city... *gank* ouch I just got 1 shot from behind with no warning or chance to defend myself!

    OK fine... rez outside of town... there is a dungeon over there, let's go explore this cave shall we?

    Wow.. kind of empty in here... all the mobs are dead.. oh, look a massive end-room - and there are 37 other players in here waiting for the Named to respawn... *gank* damnit that assassin got me again wtf was he following me?

    OK let's get some revenge on that assassin - guildies, will you come help me kill this griefer?

    No? You're too busy decorating your house? And you're too busy ganking noobs in the starter zone? Didn't you get ganked in the starter zone a lot? Oh, you're getting revenge for how you were treated...

    I guess I'll just log off... or maybe I'll hop on my alt.

    Yay, a fresh new toon to play with! *gank* GD it dude I'm like level 1! WTF is wrong with you?

    Seriously, if you think Sandboxes are like that, you are deluded  beyond cure.

    How about actually PLAYING one before assaulting us who believe its a good concept? What you described is nothing remotely close to a sandbox game.

     Oh really?

    I seem to remember UO in about '99 before Trammel / Felucca split being exactly like that...

  • AkulasAkulas GoldcoastPosts: 1,617Member Uncommon
    Seen player made and ran worlds before. Open to abuse. It just ends up being a random clutter of stuff all over the screen with about 1 or 2 layed out towns for the small group of people who bothered to try and actually build the place. Or the world ends up empty with nothing but mobs in it and 1 or 2 npcs

    This isn't a signature, you just think it is.

  • BadSpockBadSpock Somewhere, MIPosts: 7,974Member

    Yeah I remember the massive urban sprawl in UO and SWG.

    Even at peak hours, 9/10 houses were empty as people were out in the world.

    There was I think 1 or 2 cities in total in SWG on my server that were actually populated during peak hours - the rest were ghost towns. I don't remember any organized towns in UO - just lots and lots of houses with no one barely ever in them.

    People think open world housing is the savior for building community in a game - they are wrong.

    Open world housing in the UO/SWG style creates islands, or pockets, of community - but they are completely seperate from each other.

    Micro-community A spends all their time in City A, Micro-community B in city B, and the rest in NPC towns etc.

    The REAL answer is housing like what Black Desert is doing - what I've been advocating for for quite a while.

    Fable-like housing - all the houses and shops at launch are already in game, and owned by NPC's and already in the established towns and cities. Players buy houses from NPC's.

    People who live there actually live there. Plenty of NPCs and traveling players to keep things lively and use services provided by home/shop owners.

    Local communities, global game. Win/Win.

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon

    After reading this post from start to this point i come to the conclusion that mmo community has gone down hill.

    The same people saying i dont want a large world (even in a themepark), i dont want to craft, i dont want to socialize, i dont want a 2nd job (lol), i dont want to explore, i dont want to do anything to earn anything, i dont want a complex game, i dont want a death penalty, i dont want to buy from crafters, i dont want player content, i dont want anything relative to a mmo are the same people that whine about newer mmo's sucking and there is no content and they are bored!

    The community feels mmo's are console style games and should be played as such, and all the whinning and boohoo'ing has helped the devs make console style mmorpg's and it has ruined the industry.

    These newer so called mmo's are not mmorpgs, they are playstation games on crack that you have to pay a monthly fee. If you people dont want a real mmo, why they heck dont you go play a console rpg? Because mmorpg's need and should be much much more than the crap released today.

    Why do you think so many mmo;s are failing? Exactly the same reason all these statements are being made. You expect a crappy game so you can whine even more when you get to max level in 3 days and have nothing left to do. Its why we need larger world, sandbox games, so we can have much more to do. You dont have to take part in everything.  Just like you dont take part in everything in real life. But to have limitations for a mmo = never will amount to anything.

    Why would anyone paying a monthly fee want limitations?

    The mmorpg community is nothing more than a playstation/xbox community, true and epic mmo's have been dumbed down to console games. Example- TOR = KOTOR4.

    You know its funny that even the new console games offer more than the newer mmo's........... why is that....

    We need a  true and epic mmo, thats a real mmo. And that includes all the features from social to housing to wide open lands to explore and make our own content. So what if you dont like an aspect, dont take part in it. Its better having it than not and crying later there is nothing to do.

     

     

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Onomas
    After reading this post from start to this point i come to the conclusion that mmo community has gone down hill.The same people saying i dont want a large world (even in a themepark), i dont want to craft, i dont want to socialize, i dont want a 2nd job (lol), i dont want to explore, i dont want to do anything to earn anything, i dont want a complex game, i dont want a death penalty, i dont want to buy from crafters, i dont want player content, i dont want anything relative to a mmo are the same people that whine about newer mmo's sucking and there is no content and they are bored!The community feels mmo's are console style games and should be played as such, and all the whinning and boohoo'ing has helped the devs make console style mmorpg's and it has ruined the industry.These newer so called mmo's are not mmorpgs, they are playstation games on crack that you have to pay a monthly fee. If you people dont want a real mmo, why they heck dont you go play a console rpg? Because mmorpg's need and should be much much more than the crap released today.Why do you think so many mmo;s are failing? Exactly the same reason all these statements are being made. You expect a crappy game so you can whine even more when you get to max level in 3 days and have nothing left to do. Its why we need larger world, sandbox games, so we can have much more to do. You dont have to take part in everything.  Just like you dont take part in everything in real life. But to have limitations for a mmo = never will amount to anything.Why would anyone paying a monthly fee want limitations?The mmorpg community is nothing more than a playstation/xbox community, true and epic mmo's have been dumbed down to console games. Example- TOR = KOTOR4.You know its funny that even the new console games offer more than the newer mmo's........... why is that....We need a  true and epic mmo, thats a real mmo. And that includes all the features from social to housing to wide open lands to explore and make our own content. So what if you dont like an aspect, dont take part in it. Its better having it than not and crying later there is nothing to do. 

    I think what those people are saying is that they don't want to deal with the usual run of @sshats that they know will exist in any game, especially once it reaches a certain size. Which I can totally understand. That doesn't mean a game can't be built that consists of a 'world' instead of a 'game'.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • Greymantle4Greymantle4 Posts: 802Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by BadSpock

    Yeah I remember the massive urban sprawl in UO and SWG.

    Even at peak hours, 9/10 houses were empty as people were out in the world.

    There was I think 1 or 2 cities in total in SWG on my server that were actually populated during peak hours - the rest were ghost towns. I don't remember any organized towns in UO - just lots and lots of houses with no one barely ever in them.

    People think open world housing is the savior for building community in a game - they are wrong.

    Open world housing in the UO/SWG style creates islands, or pockets, of community - but they are completely seperate from each other.

    Micro-community A spends all their time in City A, Micro-community B in city B, and the rest in NPC towns etc.

    The REAL answer is housing like what Black Desert is doing - what I've been advocating for for quite a while.

    Fable-like housing - all the houses and shops at launch are already in game, and owned by NPC's and already in the established towns and cities. Players buy houses from NPC's.

    People who live there actually live there. Plenty of NPCs and traveling players to keep things lively and use services provided by home/shop owners.

    Local communities, global game. Win/Win.

    I don't agree with you give me open world housing! I would take it any day over anything else.  Not to say there is not better ways to deal with houses that are abandened but that is another story. 

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by BadSpock
    Yeah I remember the massive urban sprawl in UO and SWG.Even at peak hours, 9/10 houses were empty as people were out in the world.There was I think 1 or 2 cities in total in SWG on my server that were actually populated during peak hours - the rest were ghost towns. I don't remember any organized towns in UO - just lots and lots of houses with no one barely ever in them.People think open world housing is the savior for building community in a game - they are wrong.Open world housing in the UO/SWG style creates islands, or pockets, of community - but they are completely seperate from each other.Micro-community A spends all their time in City A, Micro-community B in city B, and the rest in NPC towns etc.The REAL answer is housing like what Black Desert is doing - what I've been advocating for for quite a while.Fable-like housing - all the houses and shops at launch are already in game, and owned by NPC's and already in the established towns and cities. Players buy houses from NPC's.People who live there actually live there. Plenty of NPCs and traveling players to keep things lively and use services provided by home/shop owners.Local communities, global game. Win/Win.

    The Fable housing isn't a bad idea. Even people who aren't part of and don't care about the whole world versus game discussion would probably participate in that.

    The thing is that communities of about 150 or so are a natural result of human behavior. If games tried to cater to that, in creating smaller villages instead of one big city, I think it would work a lot better.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • KenzeKenze Posts: 1,214Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MindTrigger

    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Also... STOP calling Second Life a game.  It is not a game.  It's more like a 3D America Online or a 3D microcosm of the web than it is a game.  You can build a game within Second Life, if you have the time and money, but it is not a game.

    If LinkedIn can be considered an online social game why not Second Life.

    If you've ever actually used Second Life, you will know why it is not a game.  Linked In likely has what is called "gamification" of their site, which does not make something a game as such, but adds game-like features to something that is otherwise mind-numbingly boring, such as Linked In.

    Second Life is a virtual world sandbox, that like I said, is much more like a 3D world wide web  than it is a game.  Just like you can create a website that is a game on the web, you can create a space in Second Life that is a game.  However, Second Life is more like a set of rules and tools, a very literal sandbox in many ways.

    You can build pretty much whatever you want in Second Life, and most of what is there is not game content.  I built a groovy smoke-out tiki hut with a tropical landscape and waterfall around it once.  Even had animated bongs and such.  No gameplay though.

     

    according to most sandboxers Ive talked to BUILDING IT was the game content.

    Watch your thoughts; they become words.
    Watch your words; they become actions.
    Watch your actions; they become habits.
    Watch your habits; they become character.
    Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
    —Lao-Tze

  • IndolIndol O''Fallon, MOPosts: 189Member

    I agree with the OP.

     

    We already have more than enough 'MMO's' that downplay or outright ignore the inherent strengths and uniqueness of the Massively Multiplayer format.

     

     

  • DSWBeefDSWBeef phoenix, AZPosts: 791Member

    Thats why im in love with Greed Monger so much atm. On launch day theres nothing but wilderness, monsters and players. the players build the world. Hell the devs are even letting us name it the world we are on. They will also allow us to wirte stories and if its good enough it will be pusblished as part of the official game canon. 

    This is what ive been looking for. Players define the world, they define the lore, they define what its all about really. 

    Playing: War Thunder, World of Warcraft, and Grim Dawn
    Waiting on:Everquest Next and The Black Desert

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    I'm definately on the "Give me a World." side...but honestly there IS room for both and everything in between. People are different and they have different tastes. People even enjoy different things dependent on thier mood. In other words, alot of people here in the states enjoy Italian food, but very few people enjoy nothing but Italian food. In the same vein, very few people enjoy just one style of game. However in terms of MMO's people may not neccesarly have TRIED that many different sorts or even know they exist, so they stick with what thier used to. It's also the case that people usualy want quality in whatever type they get. Someone may like Chinese food in addition to Italian food...but they AREN'T going to like bad Chinese food...and if the only times they've sampled Chinese food it was bad, they may (naturaly) think all Chinese food is bad.

    A bit of the frustration with those of us on the "Give me a World." side is that for the past few years the vast majority of what has been produced is the "Game" style MMO. There is a pretty straight-forward reason for that... "Worlds" are HARD to build and they are especialy hard to get right and be able to sustain...so companies have been afraid to take on the task of trying to build them. "Games" are much easier to build, so that's what companies have focused on. There is a problem on that side too, which has been increasingly discovered. The typical "SPRPG" style "Game" has limited replayability. Like I novel, once you've read through it, you are pretty much done. Even with a really great novel, you might have truely enjoyed reading it, avidly read through it, anticipate the next volume in the series. You might even read through it again at SOME point in the future, but you are unlikely to continiously read through it month after month for years on end. For the novel author and publisher that's perfectly fine. The way they are structured and budgeted,  they make a nice proffit from the initial sale. If you go off and do other things while you wait 2 or 3 years for the author to publish the next volume in the series, it's not a big deal. But for the MMO companies that's not true. The way they are traditionaly structured and budgeted, they require continious regular monthly revenue over the long term in order to be proffitable enough to be worth doing. Therefore it becomes a race between the MMO Developer to create new content to keep the player interested over the long term and the player to consume that content. It's a race that the Developer tends to lose and lose badly, especialy in many of todays MMO's when the amount of resources it takes to create content (e.g. Voice Overs, Cinematics, High Quality Art assets) has increased. In the old days, when there were very few MMO's out on the market, that might not of mattered so much. Players were willing to tolerate the "dry spells" because there weren't many other options for them, so they found ways to amuse themselves and hang around...more inspite of the game then because of it. Today though...with so many other options, the player runs off to the next new thing on the market, taking thier cash with them, and they rarely come back.

    That's why, fortunately us (or at least those of us that enjoy this style), Developers and Publishers are starting to talk about "Worlds" again....because "Worlds" if done right tend to be much more self-sustaining. Alot of the content grows organicaly from the players themselves and from the systems which drive the game world. The Developers don't find themselves stuck in a losing race to keep up with content for the players. Developers can still introduce content into those "Worlds" if they want, but because they aren't the sole source of it, they can workl at a pace which is sustainable. So good news (IMO) for the future for those of us interested in "Worlds" to play in. The thing we need to be a bit cautious about is that "Worlds" are ALOT more complicated to build and build well. It remains to be seen if some of the Developers used to producing "Game" style MMO's are upto the challenge. YMMV.

     

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member

    I disagree.

    I think we can expand the gaming mechanic and produce better games.

    I like 'world' games as well but I want the underlying mechanic to improve more.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • apocolusterapocoluster newport news, VAPosts: 1,321Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DSWBeef

    Thats why im in love with Greed Monger so much atm. On launch day theres nothing but wilderness, monsters and players. the players build the world. Hell the devs are even letting us name it the world we are on. They will also allow us to wirte stories and if its good enough it will be pusblished as part of the official game canon. 

    This is what ive been looking for. Players define the world, they define the lore, they define what its all about really. 

    Well then I hope for best for you.  I guess I can relent a little and say ONE Sand box  :)   AFter all one is all your Sandy types need right?   I think it needs a better name though  :)

    No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin

  • ReklawReklaw Am.Posts: 6,478Member Uncommon

    Your idea is cool but you already have that sandbox game you are saying and it's real life.Cant be more sandbox than this :)

    Serieusly? You consider real life a game?

    Perhaps you are unaware that you are on a game forum and we talk about games, specific genre of games. These sandbox type games we long for do NOT reflect real life, I can't single handed build you a spaceship, I am not able to plant several shops where ever I want, I don't go on scavinging hunts, I don't slay monsters or alien creatures in real life, I don't craft all sorts of armor, weapons, items.

    You know I got a business, a wife, a family, friends, other hobby's and many more things I love in real life, apart from the business the other things I do not want in my sandbox experiance, same like I don't want my sandbox experiance to reflect real life.

     

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by BadSpock

    Yeah I remember the massive urban sprawl in UO and SWG.

    Even at peak hours, 9/10 houses were empty as people were out in the world.

    There was I think 1 or 2 cities in total in SWG on my server that were actually populated during peak hours - the rest were ghost towns. I don't remember any organized towns in UO - just lots and lots of houses with no one barely ever in them.

    People think open world housing is the savior for building community in a game - they are wrong.

    Open world housing in the UO/SWG style creates islands, or pockets, of community - but they are completely seperate from each other.

    Micro-community A spends all their time in City A, Micro-community B in city B, and the rest in NPC towns etc.

    The REAL answer is housing like what Black Desert is doing - what I've been advocating for for quite a while.

    Fable-like housing - all the houses and shops at launch are already in game, and owned by NPC's and already in the established towns and cities. Players buy houses from NPC's.

    People who live there actually live there. Plenty of NPCs and traveling players to keep things lively and use services provided by home/shop owners.

    Local communities, global game. Win/Win.

    SWG's housing problem was a GAME DESIGN PROBLEM.  As I have said a million times on this site, they screwed up their design early on, and the game was known for having people who would come and go, sometimes with months between.  They did not simply want to start deleting house full of loot and resources when they wanted players to come back.  

    There is no *programming* reason, an in-world housing system has to be made with the same mistakes SOE made.  You are confusing game design decisions with what is possible.

    In fact, there is a certain project, which will remain unnamed, that just released a patch for that housing system that eliminates the issue.  Also, games like LOTRO solved the problem of abandoned houses in their game by requiring people to manually pay rent, instead of attaching the rent to their bank accounts, and also by packing up all of their loot and stuff in 'escrow' accounts where they could come back to the game at any time and retrieve their things if they lost their house.

    I get the feeling, though some of you are gamers, that you think far too much in absolutes when it comes to game design.  We are talking about code here.  No past game system design is carved in stone for all eternity.

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    Originally posted by DSWBeef

    Thats why im in love with Greed Monger so much atm. On launch day theres nothing but wilderness, monsters and players. the players build the world. Hell the devs are even letting us name it the world we are on. They will also allow us to wirte stories and if its good enough it will be pusblished as part of the official game canon. 

    This is what ive been looking for. Players define the world, they define the lore, they define what its all about really. 

    I'm keeping an eye on Greed Monger, but one of the issues I worry about is the same problem Xsyon had.  They may potentially end up with a crafting simulator with no game.  Just killing mobs isn't good enough.  There must be some sort of gameplay framework and opposing positions for the players to follow.  The example I've used in the past was Star Wars Galaxies having the Galactic Civil War, with very clear and opposing factions.

    Xsyon likely made the mistake of assuming the players would naturally do this, but by in large, people are pretty mellow, especially the kind of people who are attracted to a sandbox game like this.  They aren't going to just get together in groups and go attack people without some kind of driver.  What they may end up with is isloated PvP and ganking like Xsyon did.

    I'm watching the game, and I'm going to give them some money too, but I have some huge concerns.  I wish they would have an online Q&A or something.

    A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,214Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    Originally posted by DSWBeef

    Thats why im in love with Greed Monger so much atm. On launch day theres nothing but wilderness, monsters and players. the players build the world. Hell the devs are even letting us name it the world we are on. They will also allow us to wirte stories and if its good enough it will be pusblished as part of the official game canon. 

    This is what ive been looking for. Players define the world, they define the lore, they define what its all about really. 

    I'm keeping an eye on Greed Monger, but one of the issues I worry about is the same problem Xsyon had.  They may potentially end up with a crafting simulator with no game.  Just killing mobs isn't good enough.  There must be some sort of gameplay framework and opposing positions for the players to follow.  The example I've used in the past was Star Wars Galaxies having the Galactic Civil War, with very clear and opposing factions.

    Xsyon likely made the mistake of assuming the players would naturally do this, but by in large, people are pretty mellow, especially the kind of people who are attracted to a sandbox game like this.  They aren't going to just get together in groups and go attack people without some kind of driver.  What they may end up with is isloated PvP and ganking like Xsyon did.

    I'm watching the game, and I'm going to give them some money too, but I have some huge concerns.  I wish they would have an online Q&A or something.

    This is why I think it's important to combine both themepark and sanbox design elements in a way that provides engaging systems.  Systems can add depth that content churn does not and, if well designed, will let players contribute to the content.

    Having some "themepark" in the sandbox, so to speak, provides a framework for players to build on.  It keeps players on a more level playing field.  Having some "sandbox" in the themepark provides depth and a dynamic vibrant community driven feel to the game.  It's blending those to create engaging systems that should be the goal and is where we should be heading in game design.

  • NeherunNeherun St. MichelPosts: 278Member

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by Neherun
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Neherun

    Its called freedom, that guy wanted you killed, so he killed you.


     

    I am sorry to inform you but that is not what freedom is.


    Freedom implies there is equal right for those who are unwilling to fight as those who are willing.

    That is not what freedom is?

    Here's something from dictionary about freedom:

    3. the power to determine action without restraint.

     

    How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat? If this kind of carebearism starts, that people start to twist the actual words and their terms to defend their ways, mods will soon have a lot of stuff to edit.

    The freedom to oppress is not freedom. Freedom is exactly what Gdemami says: Those who want to fight are able to and those who don't, don't have to. In this case, freedom is consensual PvP.

    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Neherun

    3. the power to determine action without restraint.

     

    How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat?


     

    If I cannot refuse to fight and you force me into PVP against my will, my power to determine actions is met with a restraint.

     

     

    If something happens when both ends agree, its not considered a freedom (of choice), its a result of negotiation, where both parties agree. Freedom isn't a result of bargaining.

     

    Your logic is flawed on so many levels I cannot even grasp your mindset.

     

     

     

     

    image

  • KenzeKenze Posts: 1,214Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Neherun

    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by Neherun
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Neherun

    Its called freedom, that guy wanted you killed, so he killed you.


     

    I am sorry to inform you but that is not what freedom is.


    Freedom implies there is equal right for those who are unwilling to fight as those who are willing.

    That is not what freedom is?

    Here's something from dictionary about freedom:

    3. the power to determine action without restraint.

     

    How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat? If this kind of carebearism starts, that people start to twist the actual words and their terms to defend their ways, mods will soon have a lot of stuff to edit.

    The freedom to oppress is not freedom. Freedom is exactly what Gdemami says: Those who want to fight are able to and those who don't, don't have to. In this case, freedom is consensual PvP.

    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Neherun

    3. the power to determine action without restraint.

     

    How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat?


     

    If I cannot refuse to fight and you force me into PVP against my will, my power to determine actions is met with a restraint.

     

     

    If something happens when both ends agree, its not considered a freedom (of choice), its a result of negotiation, where both parties agree. Freedom isn't a result of bargaining.

     

    Your logic is flawed on so many levels I cannot even grasp your mindset.

     

     

     

     

     

    "Freedom cannot exist in the absence of law. People living in a state of anarchy are not free. They live under the random tyranny of any warlord, gang, or predator who can overpower them. They also live within the prison of their own distrust for their fellow men. A code of clear, fairly administered laws enhances our ability to trust, and cooperate with, people we don’t know personally. Of course, laws restrict our actions, by punishing us for engaging in illegal activities… but they also enhance our freedom, by allowing us to work more easily with each other, and trade with confidence. "

    Watch your thoughts; they become words.
    Watch your words; they become actions.
    Watch your actions; they become habits.
    Watch your habits; they become character.
    Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
    —Lao-Tze

  • Po_ggPo_gg Twigwarren, WestfarthingPosts: 2,718Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
     Also, games like LOTRO solved the problem of abandoned houses in their game by requiring people to manually pay rent, instead of attaching the rent to their bank accounts, and also by packing up all of their loot and stuff in 'escrow' accounts where they could come back to the game at any time and retrieve their things if they lost their house.

    While I agree with you in the concept, the example is not a good one, the community in LotRO is asking for a housing revamp since years now... What you write is correct, the rent is paid manually, when you have only 1 paid week left you got a notice, and then the house gets locked up (and your stuff goes to escrow). BUT the house remains on your name, just locked.

    This resulted in the years that you barely can find an empty house to buy, and most neighborhoods are empty ghost towns. So if you want to move in with your kinmates, there's a high chance you can't, and not because they're living a vivid neighborhood, but because it's full with long-ago locked houses on inactive accounts.

  • ForumPvPForumPvP KingstownPosts: 871Member
    Originally posted by Kenze

     

    "Freedom cannot exist in the absence of law. People living in a state of anarchy are not free. They live under the random tyranny of any warlord, gang, or predator who can overpower them. They also live within the prison of their own distrust for their fellow men. A code of clear, fairly administered laws enhances our ability to trust, and cooperate with, people we don’t know personally. Of course, laws restrict our actions, by punishing us for engaging in illegal activities… but they also enhance our freedom, by allowing us to work more easily with each other, and trade with confidence. "

    Thats why i like to read Conan ,nobody cant attack anything,everybody is just trading pizzas,i hope games will be soon like that, cant attack NPCs and NPCs cant attack  me,perfect. Just missing the point that in these games you dont really die,you are not raising any kind of family or whatever theres missing.

     

    Let's internet

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Po_gg

    Originally posted by MindTrigger  Also, games like LOTRO solved the problem of abandoned houses in their game by requiring people to manually pay rent, instead of attaching the rent to their bank accounts, and also by packing up all of their loot and stuff in 'escrow' accounts where they could come back to the game at any time and retrieve their things if they lost their house.
    While I agree with you in the concept, the example is not a good one, the community in LotRO is asking for a housing revamp since years now... What you write is correct, the rent is paid manually, when you have only 1 paid week left you got a notice, and then the house gets locked up (and your stuff goes to escrow). BUT the house remains on your name, just locked.

    This resulted in the years that you barely can find an empty house to buy, and most neighborhoods are empty ghost towns. So if you want to move in with your kinmates, there's a high chance you can't, and not because they're living a vivid neighborhood, but because it's full with long-ago locked houses on inactive accounts.


    This system sounds cool with a little tweak. If players don't log in for a couple weeks, they get a redund on their house and stuff is put in escrow. They can get a new house upon return.

    Oh for people saying sandbox = pvp, please stop. Completely unrelated. Sandbox is a world where the player decides what to do; themeparks tell players what to do.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,865Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by NeherunIf something happens when both ends agree, its not considered a freedom (of choice), its a result of negotiation, where both parties agree. Freedom isn't a result of bargaining. Your logic is flawed on so many levels I cannot even grasp your mindset.

    It is your assumptions, your logic, your flaws. I did not imply any of what you said.

  • Po_ggPo_gg Twigwarren, WestfarthingPosts: 2,718Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Arclan

     

    Originally posted by Po_gg

    This resulted in the years that you barely can find an empty house to buy, and most neighborhoods are empty ghost towns. So if you want to move in with your kinmates, there's a high chance you can't, and not because they're living a vivid neighborhood, but because it's full with long-ago locked houses on inactive accounts.

    This system sounds cool with a little tweak. If players don't log in for a couple weeks, they get a redund on their house and stuff is put in escrow. They can get a new house upon return.

    The problem is that the house remains on the player's name. And if the owner don't log in (or log in, just don't care about his house anymore), the house stays locked. Apparently Turbine is unable to separate it :)

    Just guessing, but I think now the escrow is somehow linked to the house, because if you pay later, your house opening up with all your stuff. And those rare occasions when they say something on the subject, they're stating that housing is not a priority right now, so probably it will stay this way in the future too.

    (another guess, maybe they don't want to separate it. In your model, if you don't pay, stuff goes to escrow, and player lost his house with a refund, that's basically a free storage for the rarely used stuff... and Turbine is very careful with the precious inventory spaces :) )

Sign In or Register to comment.