Because MMOs are stagnant. Only one type ever seems to go beyond pre alpha phase, and that's inferior single player games with multiplayer lobbies. It's my guess that people would be less frustrated with other's preferred playstyle if more was offered in the genre.
Originally posted by ihaveabeard Because MMOs are stagnant. Only one type ever seems to go beyond pre alpha phase, and that's inferior single player games with multiplayer lobbies. It's my guess that people would be less frustrated with other's preferred playstyle if more was offered in the genre.
Stating opinion as fact does not make it fact... You may feel it is stagnant but other may be perfectly happy with the choices being offered. Again, at the end of the day, it comes to PERSONAL likes/dislikes. The sooner people realize this, they happier they will be.
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
Originally posted by ihaveabeard Because MMOs are stagnant. Only one type ever seems to go beyond pre alpha phase, and that's inferior single player games with multiplayer lobbies. It's my guess that people would be less frustrated with other's preferred playstyle if more was offered in the genre.
Stating opinion as fact does not make it fact... You may feel it is stagnant but other may be perfectly happy with the choices being offered. Again, at the end of the day, it comes to PERSONAL likes/dislikes. The sooner people realize this, they happier they will be.
And more important, no matter how their opinions are, they can't force their gameplay on others. If i want to play solo-lobby-MMOs ... i will do so.
Originally posted by ihaveabeard Because MMOs are stagnant. Only one type ever seems to go beyond pre alpha phase, and that's inferior single player games with multiplayer lobbies. It's my guess that people would be less frustrated with other's preferred playstyle if more was offered in the genre.
Stating opinion as fact does not make it fact... You may feel it is stagnant but other may be perfectly happy with the choices being offered. Again, at the end of the day, it comes to PERSONAL likes/dislikes. The sooner people realize this, they happier they will be.
But he did not state an opinion as fact, he stated an opinion as an opinion.
..... and yes it seems only single player games with multiplayer lobbies make it beyond pre alpha phase at the moment.
..... it seems that only third person view games get developed (with or without a token first person view option) in a genre that seems to me to be perfect for first person view games.
..... it seems that only games that follow the old arcade level design with "trash mobs" and a level boss get developed even though with a virtual world so much else could be attempted
Originally posted by ihaveabeard Because MMOs are stagnant. Only one type ever seems to go beyond pre alpha phase, and that's inferior single player games with multiplayer lobbies. It's my guess that people would be less frustrated with other's preferred playstyle if more was offered in the genre.
Stating opinion as fact does not make it fact... You may feel it is stagnant but other may be perfectly happy with the choices being offered. Again, at the end of the day, it comes to PERSONAL likes/dislikes. The sooner people realize this, they happier they will be.
Nowhere did I say YOUR preferred playstyle is wrong, why so defensive? I don't know you, and sure as heck don't care what games you prefer to play. You might want to read posts more carefully next time.
Consent and free will violations are pretty much front and center as the basis or "right" for common western morality, so why is it that certain groups of MMO players love oh so much to enforce playstyle they prefer onto people that don't prefer those playstyles.
Why do certain religions and cultures feel the need to impose their beliefs and lifestyle on others?
Same thing, different scale. People are unwilling to co-exist with those who do not share the same values they do.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
You want to be able to enter a pvp-only zone (the only pvp zone in the game mind you) and not be flagged for pvp?
Now who is being a little selfish?
Actually, he wants a special PvE version of the zone where nobody can PvP, so that anti-PvP people can experience the PvE side of the area without the nuisance of having to experience it as it's intended to be experienced.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
He wants to enter the PvP only zone to do PvE content, in the PvP only zone?
Or is the PvP only PvE?
Wait what?
It's the only PvP zone, but it's not a PvP only zone. There are PvE quest hubs there.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
You want to be able to enter a pvp-only zone (the only pvp zone in the game mind you) and not be flagged for pvp?
Now who is being a little selfish?
Pretty much what I was thinking myself.......I don't use the phrase "self entitlement" much , if at all...but that's the feel I got from OP.
I felt the OP was making a much more general point than that. But if you narrow the discussion down to "a PvE-only Cyrodil campaign in ESO" and the opposition to that I have to agree with you.
I also feel that if that was all the OP was talking about then the thread should have been in the ESO section and not the general section of these forums.
As the OP chose to put it here I still think the point was more general than you try to make it seem.
Taking an absolutely gigantic PvP zone and converting it, (or cloning it), into a PvE zone would probably take them upwards of 6 months to a year and millions upon millions of dollars. They'd have to add mobs/bosses in place of enemy players, maybe add more quests and additional npcs to give these quests. The whole thing would have to be alpha tested, beta tested, debugged, balanced, etc., etc..
What would inevitably happen is that one of the versions of Cyrodiil would become easier to farm than the other. The PvP version might be easier during off peak hours, when many players aren't logged in. The PvE version would eventually get out geared and the mechanics would become rote. Trying to balance the two different versions of Cyrodiil against each other would undoubtedly prove to be a nightmare. Players would flock to the version that was perceived to be quicker/easier, leaving the other version a veritable ghost town.
I'm mostly a PvE player myself, but implementing a PvE version of Cyrodiil just doesn't make any sense at this point.
Edit: I'm assuming the OP is asking for an entirely separate PvE version. Just letting players run around the current Cyrodiil un-flagged wouldn't make any sense, it would defeat the entire purpose of the zone.
You want to be able to enter a pvp-only zone (the only pvp zone in the game mind you) and not be flagged for pvp?
Now who is being a little selfish?
He wants to enter the PvP only zone to do PvE content, in the PvP only zone?
Or is the PvP only PvE?
Wait what?
No. What they are asking for is two separate zones. One is PvP and one is PvE. Players would be in different phases so that the PvP people would be all together and the PvE people would be all together. If they weren't going with a "super server" thing, it would be two different servers.
**
Which is an odd request for ESO, since the developers have taken pains to create both PvE and PvP content. The only difference between PvE content in Cyrodil and PvE content outside of Cyrodil would be the location.
I don't think there's anything wrong with players wanting stuff like this, but at the same time, the developers have decided how they want it setup. ESO doesn't need a PvE only Cyrodil, because ESO has a PvE only entire half or more of the game. Darkfall doesn't need PvE servers because the developers don't want them and the game just isn't built with that in mind. And so on. I'm sure there's an inverse request that approximates the PvE requests I've noted somewhere. Maybe PvP in A Tale In The Desert. Nothing wrong with wanting it, but don't expect changes like this to take place.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is the fundamental flaw of today's mmorpg gamer. They are not looking for the answer to their issues anymore, they want the devs to give them the answers, the goals, the achievements and the endgame. In the past mmorpg gamers use to compensate for a lot of shortcomings found in past mmorpgs. My friends and I wanted to be ninjas in UO, there was no ninja class, skills, armor or weapons. So we "created" our version of ninjas in a UO setting. We basically looked for our answer and made due with what was provided.
The stage has been set for ESO, there is no given endgame for PvErs handed to you so obviously. The focus of the game is war, so what you do with that with a PvE mindset is up to you. You can tr catering to a PvPer mindset by trying to become a legend on the battlefield. I doubt you'd get anywhere but frustrated. Or you can create your own "ninja". The choice is yours. Too many mmorpg gamers these days want to change something they play instead of change the way they play.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
My point is that there are a lot of different play styles out there and when you sort those 642 games into categories there are an awful lot of them in a very few categories and quite a number of categories with no games in them at all.
No you did not offer to research games for people but you said that there existed games for every play style and when people point out that there are play styles without games you at least imply that it is their fault for wanting a game to meet their play style.
.... and yes that is a personal attack.
So your saying it's not my fault if I can't find what I'm looking for? That I should give that responsibility to someone or something else? I believe that finding what I enjoy is my responsibility.
It may or not be your fault if you can't find what you are looking for, nor is it the responsibility of others to provide what you are looking for.
However, it is a personal attack to suggest that someone has a problem for having an aspiration that has yet to be met.
BTW you still have not substantiated your claim that there is a game for every play style.
I really don't understand that if you can't find a game to enjoy out of hundreds after a 2 year search, then it is your problem. Who else's problem would it be? There is no perfect MMO. Playing in an MMO means we have to adjust and adapt to playing with a community in order to find enjoyment. MMO's constantly change as well as gamers. I still do believe there is a game for every playstyle, and yes all this is my opinion and not a claim.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The one that gets me is the "must use voice" crowd. If you are not into voice chat or worse have some reason why you CAN'T use voice chat, you have no haven. The voice people will force you to use it. It would be nice if games had servers where the terms of play eschewed voice chat.
Originally posted by centkin The one that gets me is the "must use voice" crowd. If you are not into voice chat or worse have some reason why you CAN'T use voice chat, you have no haven. The voice people will force you to use it. It would be nice if games had servers where the terms of play eschewed voice chat.
Yeah, I'll be interested in voice chat once we have advanced filters that make player voices sound appropriate to the characters they are attached to. Until then, no thanks, I don't need squeaky pimple voices from buff orcs, deep baritones from elf chicks, or the voice of a small child coming from somebody who looks like Gandalf.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Originally posted by ihaveabeard Because MMOs are stagnant. Only one type ever seems to go beyond pre alpha phase, and that's inferior single player games with multiplayer lobbies. It's my guess that people would be less frustrated with other's preferred playstyle if more was offered in the genre.
Stating opinion as fact does not make it fact... You may feel it is stagnant but other may be perfectly happy with the choices being offered. Again, at the end of the day, it comes to PERSONAL likes/dislikes. The sooner people realize this, they happier they will be.
Nowhere did I say YOUR preferred playstyle is wrong, why so defensive? I don't know you, and sure as heck don't care what games you prefer to play. You might want to read posts more carefully next time.
You made a broad generalization and nowhere did you indicate "in my opinion" or "I think". Learn to communicate better and there will be less misunderstandings.
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
Consent and free will violations are pretty much front and center as the basis or "right" for common western morality, so why is it that certain groups of MMO players love oh so much to enforce playstyle they prefer onto people that don't prefer those playstyles.
How is this possible? Players don't create the games, they don't make the rules. Nor do they choose what games others play.
Players can complain, threaten to quit or actually quit, but that's about it.
Complain until the game changes would seem most likely. TESO could be seen as having been player feedback influenced.
Also talking sh** about upcoming releases with the intent of discrediting them because the design doesn't match their preferred gameplay. SWTOR not being a sandbox being a pretty clear example.
No, the issue with SWTOR was because the game was barely an MMO at all.
Originally posted by Tibernicuspa Because MMOs are complex things and letting certain players just have what they want because they THINK it'll be convenient and fun, undermines the rest of the game for the rest of the players.
How so?
How does it undermine the game? How does making more people happy undermine the game?
Would everyone in Eve be happier if they all had a billion isk? Yes. But it would ruin the point of the entire game.
If you're making a PVP game, unless you tie it to the game world, the PvP is going to feel shallow and unrewarding for the PvP players. So, if PvE prices are influenced by PvP successes and failures, than PvP and PvE can both interact. PvE players may not want this on surface, but it makes the game richer as a whole.
Making SOME people happy at the expense of all the others is bad.
My point is that there are a lot of different play styles out there and when you sort those 642 games into categories there are an awful lot of them in a very few categories and quite a number of categories with no games in them at all.
No you did not offer to research games for people but you said that there existed games for every play style and when people point out that there are play styles without games you at least imply that it is their fault for wanting a game to meet their play style.
.... and yes that is a personal attack.
So your saying it's not my fault if I can't find what I'm looking for? That I should give that responsibility to someone or something else? I believe that finding what I enjoy is my responsibility.
It may or not be your fault if you can't find what you are looking for, nor is it the responsibility of others to provide what you are looking for.
However, it is a personal attack to suggest that someone has a problem for having an aspiration that has yet to be met.
BTW you still have not substantiated your claim that there is a game for every play style.
I really don't understand that if you can't find a game to enjoy out of hundreds after a 2 year search, then it is your problem. Who else's problem would it be? There is no perfect MMO. Playing in an MMO means we have to adjust and adapt to playing with a community in order to find enjoyment. MMO's constantly change as well as gamers. I still do believe there is a game for every playstyle, and yes all this is my opinion and not a claim.
.... and yet three people have posted lists of criteria and no one has come up for a game for any of them.
No the "hundreds of games" soon get whittled down to none when you apply a set of criteria to them that is not the current main stream.
Yes I have a game I play, not because it is a 10 out 10 but because as a 5 out of 10 it is the best match I have found at the moment. I and others do select from what is out there but still hope for a game to come along that is a better match than the current crop. To suggest that there is a game "for every play style" is naive at best and deliberately provocative at worst.
To take this site's list of nearly 700 games and apply a couple of criteria to the list and see how fast it dwindles.
Released since 1/1/2010
Full 3d
High fantasy (no spaceships, no fire arms and no robots or mech suits)
No twitch combat
How many do you think would be left?
Remember this is just the start of a selection criteria and not the end.
But it boils down to gaming is about preferences, and free market, and so no matter what they are saying, it is moot at the end, since the market is going to do what it does anyway.
And no one should compromise on their preferences. I always play games my way .. and if devs don't want to cater to me, i will do something else.
It is that simple.
If only the market truly were free. AS it stands right now, I LOVE the theme and feel of ESO but absolutely cannot stand PvP, so essentially I will have no end-game as end-game is heavily crafting influenced and all good end-game mats and recipes come from PvP areas.
On the contrast, Wildstar looks exactly like what I want in an MMO, but lacks any form of seriousness, graphical fidelity, or complexity (both inner and outer), and to boot I HATE HATE HATE anything that looks sci-fi.
The day where new MMOs are coming out all the time to suit all types of playstyles is when I'll be happy but right now the genre feels so shallow to me in the upcoming year.
So the question is - why do others want to force their gameplay on others?
Well, apparently your reason is so you can get mats and recipes from non-pvp areas.
Consent and free will violations are pretty much front and center as the basis or "right" for common western morality, so why is it that certain groups of MMO players love oh so much to enforce playstyle they prefer onto people that don't prefer those playstyles.
What instigated this is reading about how some people are against adding a PvE-only Cyrodil campaign in ESO, for example. Or older examples like WoW where they fought to improve the way where one could permanently toggle PvP off.
While this is of course more prominent for PVP'ers in my knowledge this kind of vitriol also comes from PvE'ers (hardcore more often than not), and "hardcore" gamers in general.
I mean I've pretty much accepted that it's the way of human to be blissfully and ignorantly bigoted and try to dominate and subdue people that don't agree with them because of some perceived strength or level of value to their specific opinion simply because...well, because. But at the same time it just gets hard to wrap my head around it.
Why can't you let people just be whoever the hell they want to be? They're themselves anyway, you restricting them doesn't change that in any way. It just makes life shittier from a utilitarian standpoint.
What's worse is the convoluted logic these people will sometimes employ to defend these claims.
And before you post "Of you're complaining about intolerance by being intolerant of intolerance" well god damnit there's no way out of the tolerance paradox that doesn't conflict with my moral standings, flimsy as they may be, so I just say fuck it. If it helps I'm approaching this from a utilitarian POV as well so just take it from there.
One of the reasons that Goonies and other such tend to object to that is obvious... People playing on PvE servers/areas aren't available for ganking and/or griefing. Its really as simple as that.
Some may make different claims, and hand wave about "tradition" and other such nonsense, but it all boils down to that.
Comments
Stating opinion as fact does not make it fact... You may feel it is stagnant but other may be perfectly happy with the choices being offered. Again, at the end of the day, it comes to PERSONAL likes/dislikes. The sooner people realize this, they happier they will be.
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
And more important, no matter how their opinions are, they can't force their gameplay on others. If i want to play solo-lobby-MMOs ... i will do so.
But he did not state an opinion as fact, he stated an opinion as an opinion.
..... and yes it seems only single player games with multiplayer lobbies make it beyond pre alpha phase at the moment.
..... it seems that only third person view games get developed (with or without a token first person view option) in a genre that seems to me to be perfect for first person view games.
..... it seems that only games that follow the old arcade level design with "trash mobs" and a level boss get developed even though with a virtual world so much else could be attempted
etc.
The genre is stagnant.
Nowhere did I say YOUR preferred playstyle is wrong, why so defensive? I don't know you, and sure as heck don't care what games you prefer to play. You might want to read posts more carefully next time.
Why do certain religions and cultures feel the need to impose their beliefs and lifestyle on others?
Same thing, different scale. People are unwilling to co-exist with those who do not share the same values they do.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Wait, let me get this straight.
You want to be able to enter a pvp-only zone (the only pvp zone in the game mind you) and not be flagged for pvp?
Now who is being a little selfish?
Unlike religion and culture, you don't have to. No one forces to play the same game as those who have different preferences.
Actually, he wants a special PvE version of the zone where nobody can PvP, so that anti-PvP people can experience the PvE side of the area without the nuisance of having to experience it as it's intended to be experienced.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Pretty much what I was thinking myself.......I don't use the phrase "self entitlement" much , if at all...but that's the feel I got from OP.
He wants to enter the PvP only zone to do PvE content, in the PvP only zone?
Or is the PvP only PvE?
Wait what?
It's the only PvP zone, but it's not a PvP only zone. There are PvE quest hubs there.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I felt the OP was making a much more general point than that. But if you narrow the discussion down to "a PvE-only Cyrodil campaign in ESO" and the opposition to that I have to agree with you.
I also feel that if that was all the OP was talking about then the thread should have been in the ESO section and not the general section of these forums.
As the OP chose to put it here I still think the point was more general than you try to make it seem.
Taking an absolutely gigantic PvP zone and converting it, (or cloning it), into a PvE zone would probably take them upwards of 6 months to a year and millions upon millions of dollars. They'd have to add mobs/bosses in place of enemy players, maybe add more quests and additional npcs to give these quests. The whole thing would have to be alpha tested, beta tested, debugged, balanced, etc., etc..
What would inevitably happen is that one of the versions of Cyrodiil would become easier to farm than the other. The PvP version might be easier during off peak hours, when many players aren't logged in. The PvE version would eventually get out geared and the mechanics would become rote. Trying to balance the two different versions of Cyrodiil against each other would undoubtedly prove to be a nightmare. Players would flock to the version that was perceived to be quicker/easier, leaving the other version a veritable ghost town.
I'm mostly a PvE player myself, but implementing a PvE version of Cyrodiil just doesn't make any sense at this point.
Edit: I'm assuming the OP is asking for an entirely separate PvE version. Just letting players run around the current Cyrodiil un-flagged wouldn't make any sense, it would defeat the entire purpose of the zone.
No. What they are asking for is two separate zones. One is PvP and one is PvE. Players would be in different phases so that the PvP people would be all together and the PvE people would be all together. If they weren't going with a "super server" thing, it would be two different servers.
**
Which is an odd request for ESO, since the developers have taken pains to create both PvE and PvP content. The only difference between PvE content in Cyrodil and PvE content outside of Cyrodil would be the location.
I don't think there's anything wrong with players wanting stuff like this, but at the same time, the developers have decided how they want it setup. ESO doesn't need a PvE only Cyrodil, because ESO has a PvE only entire half or more of the game. Darkfall doesn't need PvE servers because the developers don't want them and the game just isn't built with that in mind. And so on. I'm sure there's an inverse request that approximates the PvE requests I've noted somewhere. Maybe PvP in A Tale In The Desert. Nothing wrong with wanting it, but don't expect changes like this to take place.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This is the fundamental flaw of today's mmorpg gamer. They are not looking for the answer to their issues anymore, they want the devs to give them the answers, the goals, the achievements and the endgame. In the past mmorpg gamers use to compensate for a lot of shortcomings found in past mmorpgs. My friends and I wanted to be ninjas in UO, there was no ninja class, skills, armor or weapons. So we "created" our version of ninjas in a UO setting. We basically looked for our answer and made due with what was provided.
The stage has been set for ESO, there is no given endgame for PvErs handed to you so obviously. The focus of the game is war, so what you do with that with a PvE mindset is up to you. You can tr catering to a PvPer mindset by trying to become a legend on the battlefield. I doubt you'd get anywhere but frustrated. Or you can create your own "ninja". The choice is yours. Too many mmorpg gamers these days want to change something they play instead of change the way they play.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
I really don't understand that if you can't find a game to enjoy out of hundreds after a 2 year search, then it is your problem. Who else's problem would it be? There is no perfect MMO. Playing in an MMO means we have to adjust and adapt to playing with a community in order to find enjoyment. MMO's constantly change as well as gamers. I still do believe there is a game for every playstyle, and yes all this is my opinion and not a claim.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Yeah, I'll be interested in voice chat once we have advanced filters that make player voices sound appropriate to the characters they are attached to. Until then, no thanks, I don't need squeaky pimple voices from buff orcs, deep baritones from elf chicks, or the voice of a small child coming from somebody who looks like Gandalf.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
You made a broad generalization and nowhere did you indicate "in my opinion" or "I think". Learn to communicate better and there will be less misunderstandings.
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
No, the issue with SWTOR was because the game was barely an MMO at all.
Would everyone in Eve be happier if they all had a billion isk? Yes. But it would ruin the point of the entire game.
If you're making a PVP game, unless you tie it to the game world, the PvP is going to feel shallow and unrewarding for the PvP players. So, if PvE prices are influenced by PvP successes and failures, than PvP and PvE can both interact. PvE players may not want this on surface, but it makes the game richer as a whole.
Making SOME people happy at the expense of all the others is bad.
.... and yet three people have posted lists of criteria and no one has come up for a game for any of them.
No the "hundreds of games" soon get whittled down to none when you apply a set of criteria to them that is not the current main stream.
Yes I have a game I play, not because it is a 10 out 10 but because as a 5 out of 10 it is the best match I have found at the moment. I and others do select from what is out there but still hope for a game to come along that is a better match than the current crop. To suggest that there is a game "for every play style" is naive at best and deliberately provocative at worst.
To take this site's list of nearly 700 games and apply a couple of criteria to the list and see how fast it dwindles.
So the question is - why do others want to force their gameplay on others?
Well, apparently your reason is so you can get mats and recipes from non-pvp areas.
One of the reasons that Goonies and other such tend to object to that is obvious... People playing on PvE servers/areas aren't available for ganking and/or griefing. Its really as simple as that.
Some may make different claims, and hand wave about "tradition" and other such nonsense, but it all boils down to that.