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.

1234568»

Comments

  • MindTriggerMindTrigger La Quinta, CAPosts: 2,596Member
    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.

    The main problem with the housing in Lotro is that it's not much more than additional storage for most people.  Like most other instanced housing, it's largely worthless.

    Still, any problems with these systems are just design issues.  The original complaint by BadSpock was the old problem SWG had with myriad abandoned homes taking up space and littering the countrysides.  You can also attribute this to the NGE though, when most people left en masse days after the changes.  

    At any rate, these are still mostly design decisions.  I have no problem bellieving in-world housing can be done correctly as long as the system is fleshed out from the get-go.

    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.

  • asmkm22asmkm22 Anchorage, AKPosts: 1,788Member
    Skyrim didn't really feel like an open world though.  More like a large set of farmland.  When the total square miles is only in the double digits, it's not a world.

    You make me like charity

  • AesowhreapAesowhreap Omaha, NEPosts: 78Member
    Yeah the more maps in a lot of these games the better.

    Best Regards, ...

  • NeherunNeherun St. MichelPosts: 278Member
    Originally posted by Kenze
    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. "

    I ain't sure if you're being serious anymore. Troll or not, I'll reply out of boredom.

    First, laws in any form do not restrict us from doing anything, they give us incentives not to do something. So your concept of "Law = freedom" doesn't make sense at all. Also, the whole concept of anarchy is freedom, and arguably, the problem with anarchy is that there are zero incentives not to do something, thus "everything is in the state of anarchy". 

    Laws do not enhance our freedom in anyway, they give us consequences for doing something, we still have the freedom of choice whether we decide to engage in action considered illegial. Next time you walk through red traffic lights, see if some artificial barrier suddenly tells you "no, you cannot do that". And you'll wait for the green light. I seriously wish to see such a higher force invetervention.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    image

  • fenistilfenistil GliwicePosts: 3,005Member
    Originally posted by MindTrigger
    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.

    The main problem with the housing in Lotro is that it's not much more than additional storage for most people.  Like most other instanced housing, it's largely worthless.

    Still, any problems with these systems are just design issues.  The original complaint by BadSpock was the old problem SWG had with myriad abandoned homes taking up space and littering the countrysides.  You can also attribute this to the NGE though, when most people left en masse days after the changes.  

    At any rate, these are still mostly design decisions.  I have no problem bellieving in-world housing can be done correctly as long as the system is fleshed out from the get-go.

    Yeah, any housing will be empty and abandoned if there are not measures taken to avoid it. Even totally instanced like Lotro's.  

    Which mean sending this home to bank as an item after certain peroid of inactivity / no-sub paying. Think 2-3 months should be max.  

    That way if player come back he can take this item and put his house with all things inside again. he will just have to worry hismelf for finding new place for home in game world or in instanced 'adress' / neighbourhood.

    Perfect? Nope. There is no perfection though and if systems are to work developers have to make certain decisions and stand by them even if part of playerbase is whining about it. It is not going to work otherwise. 

    Or work like in Lotro / UO when there are whole 'fields' of abandoned houses.

    UO additionally made a mistake by not excluding more terrain from house building.   Excluding ~50%-70% of wilderness would make game world less clutered and still allow to find places 'out there'. Would need bit diffrently designed continent though, maybe also a little bit bigger.

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Neherun
    Originally posted by Kenze 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. "
    I ain't sure if you're being serious anymore. Troll or not, I'll reply out of boredom.

    First, laws in any form do not restrict us from doing anything, they give us incentives not to do something. So your concept of "Law = freedom" doesn't make sense at all. Also, the whole concept of anarchy is freedom, and arguably, the problem with anarchy is that there are zero incentives not to do something, thus "everything is in the state of anarchy". 

    Laws do not enhance our freedom in anyway, they give us consequences for doing something, we still have the freedom of choice whether we decide to engage in action considered illegial. Next time you walk through red traffic lights, see if some artificial barrier suddenly tells you "no, you cannot do that". And you'll wait for the green light. I seriously wish to see such a higher force invetervention.
     



    Troll? Rofl I think not. His paragraph makes absolute sense and is 100% accurate.

    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

  • DirkinDirkin Manassas, VAPosts: 78Member

    Man, the more I read in this thread, the more I read about what the folks that "want a world instead of game" are looking for, the more I realize that you are describing a game that already exists: Vanguard.

    This whole "World vs Game" issue as most of you are describing it is one of the main reason the game even survived, because as most know it had serious problems. However, most of the issues Vanguard has had have been a result of mis-management, both from Sigil originally, and from SoE basically ignoring the game for years. The game itself was never really the problem. The reason it managed to stay alive was because of the folks that stayed with it, because it's the type of game they wanted, as opposed to the newer games that you are describing as Games instead of Worlds.

    People here were saying that sandboxes where you can "do whatever you want" are boring because they offer nothing to do and expect you to come up with whatever it is you want, which is lame. That's a valid enough point. The success of the "World" type of game is giving player all sorts of options, and THEN saying do whatever you want. That is something Vanguard has always done brilliantly. There is enough content already in game in Vanguard 1-50 that you can level up multiple characters to 50 without ever doing the same content twice. You have the option to follow whatever levelling path you want, with whatever playstyle you want.

    Obviously, if you haven't figured it out already, I am and have been a VG player since its launch. I'm trying not to sound too much like a fanboi, but am giving my honest opinion, because to me it rings true with the topic at hand. VG isn't like 100% open gameworld sandbox, there's plenty of raids at high level and quest paths and such for levelling up. But there are no random dynamic events, there are no instances (literally 0). The VG world is immersive, and provides countless options to do whatever you feel like doing. Sorry for the diatribe, it just really struck me as I was reading.

    To those who read through this whole thread and agree with the sentiment presented: Give Vanguard a try. It's had its share of problems, but it's f2p now (whether you like the f2p model or not), and it has a new dev team that is actually making things happen.

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by tom_gore

    You "Games, not Worlds" guys should just shut up and be happy. There are more MMO Games coming out all the time that you probably have time to play. Three big western AAA titles within a year and an expansion to the biggest MMO Game out there.

    Us "Worlds, not Games" guys have currently ZERO viable choices if we want anything that isn't full loot FFA PvP or made by incompetent and/or underbudgeted dev teams.

    But I guess it's difficult to see that from your side of the fence.

    I agree with you. Although I like games over worlds there is room for both.  I would even try it out.

    I would like to see a mmo that has a HUGE freaken world (one did it in the past but never made it out of beta).  You would see a mountain and it could take you all day (or two) to actually walk there.

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member
    Originally posted by sapphen

    I would like to see a mmo that has a HUGE freaken world (one did it in the past but never made it out of beta).  You would see a mountain and it could take you all day (or two) to actually walk there.

    Personally I like the idea of persistant worlds that are dynamically generated as people explore them.  Finite resources, infinite horizon.

  • ignore_meignore_me Apple Valley, CAPosts: 1,987Member
    Originally posted by apocoluster
    Originally posted by ignore_me
    Originally posted by apocoluster

     

    Why build all this world if its just going to get ignored for the most part by most of the players.   The players are doing what they want to do.  If every Themepark was deleted off every server right now..and replaced by open world player driven sandboxes your not going to have a new crop of sandbox players arrive...it will still just be you guys..the niche and the rest (well 99%) will just stop gaming.

    This post has it all ... Themer invective, doom prophecies, magic statistics, and a hypothetical scenario of mystical mechanics.

     

    Don't leave the cave people, there are no quests out there!

    And admittedly all made up from my brain.  I dont have the knowledge or statistics, just a gut feeling.  I believe Im right.  Just like you dont beleive I am.   All good bro.

    Well, I can't argue with that :)  I respect your honesty.

    Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011

1234568»
Sign In or Register to comment.