It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by kitarad Content locusts are not necessarily carebears. People who try to level fast and grind levels usually do it for PvP. See recent release of ESO people grinding for veteran ranks for PvP. So those consuming content fast are not carebears.
Then why they keep complaining that there is not enough pve content when they reach max level in a few days. Shouldn't day focus on their pvp and stop QQing about the pve they dont care about?
Originally posted by ORIGINALPK TL;DR: There are tons of themepark games for themepark fans to choose from. Why do they want every sandbox game to mold into a themepark too?
I've been on these forums for years and there has never been a popular game that didn't have players expressing desire for "open world pvp".
Heck, in closed beta Lord of the Rings there were huge threads where people only wanting open world pvp constantly tried to "claim the game for their own".
So it seems that people on each side of the discussion are equally as ardent in their desires to have the particular game reflect their tastes.
Originally posted by samanthakits not the open world pvp that bothers most carebears, nor it specifically a themepark crowd, the main issue here is griefing, people dont like people who grief, who take sheer enjoyment in other peoples misery, who like abuse other players. its pure psychological abuse, do these griefers treat their families this way as well?and the reason these griefers want an all griefing game with no other server options is to continue griefing to rpay on the weak. also currently how many sandbox games that are release for people to play that cater to the sandbox crowd? its not that carebears want everygame to be carebear friendly is the fact that there is no sandbox that caters to the carebear crowd
Currently Playing: Star Wars The Old Republic
Originally posted by rojo6934 i always thought care bears in mmos were the ones who helped other players because not a single time have i seen someone calling another care bear and talking negative in the same sentence outside of this forums. It seems im awfully wrong.
The people in PvE MMORPGs call the people in PvP MMORPGs "gankers" and the people in the PvP MMORPGs call the people in PvE MMORPGs "carebears", but since they don't play each others' games, they have to do it on forums like these. :-)
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Lets be honest OP, if you've read anything at all on the topic, you would already have the answers to your questions. Just about every thread on this site is peppered with the very theme you are researching... if you are indeed researching anything at all and not merely posting yet another discussion thread on the topic.
You aren't studying anyones behavior, you're studying personal opinions... opinions that may or may not be demonstrated in actual game play or purchasing behavior. "I hate ESO, I'm not going to buy it..." and yet they are playing the game, like it or not. What has their opinion proved? That they say one thing and do another. Really, you can't glean anything quantitative from these forums. You might as well make up your research paper. It will still be as "factual" in the end.
Game developers do research on the topic. They have real numbers to back up what they've researched. They know how many people bought their game, how many are actually playing it, their playing habits, et al. These things weren't fished out of a forum post or poll. It's quantitative research. People assume that they are pulling shit out of their ass when it comes to game design. I hate to tell you this, but if they make their game carebear, it's because their player base is statistically carebear. Not based on opinions, not based on speculation, not based of forum posts or surveys, but actual factual data.
These forums are full of posts about how great or bad a game or feature or whatever is. All of which pales in comparison to the statistics that developers have at their disposal. They're not about to share that data with you. It's proprietary information. You can however, deduce the crux of that information by the direction of their game design. You may assume they are "listening to the players" but their decisions are based on statistics, not who screams the loudest. If players truly are unhappy with the game, they don't play it. If they are unhappy with it but are still playing it, it's not statistically significant enough to justify changing it. It's really quite simple, if themeparks didn't sell, they wouldn't make them.
So long as players continue to flock to new games, whether good or bad, just to pass the time away until another game comes along, they will continue to generate statistics knowingly or unknowingly that drives the direction of the genre. You can't go to a forum and bitch about the content of a game and then turn around and spend 20 hours per week playing it. You're saying one thing and doing another. Your actions generate statistically significant data, your opinions do not.
PVP-centric MMORPG's fail...
That is why.
I wish I could say its a odd approach to researching something, to state what you want as a result and then craft the questions to prove the result you want.
The first problem is that you need to define themepark and sandbox. I don't agree that sandbox games must have ffa pvp. Very few games can be said to be one or the other, most games are some variant of a "sandpark". Even SWG was to a degree. I wish to god we could get a decent sandbox that didn't have ffa pvp, not because I have some fear of pvp, but because ffa pvp brings too many players whos main source of a amusement is simply making other people's gametime suck (yes, yes, not anyone here, those "other" guys). "If its too intense for you, play another game". Great advice, until too many people take it, then the game dies from lack of players.
There is no "carebear" plot against you poor ffa pvpers. Devs make games based partially on what will sell. MO and Darkfall of great examples of how not to make money on a game (they aren't AAA games, but they work well to show how the playerbase, once established, has serious problems increasing). Devs see this, then they look at even moderately successful pve heavy games like rift and neverwinter, and voila, they walk away from the ffa pvp sandbox that crowd pines for.
Because we want a sandbox too!
Im not against PVP (1000 games of lol under my belt for a start) but I would LOVE for a PvE focused open world MMO, not a lobby game, not minecraft online but an actual sandbox game with consensual pvp.
Just as much as the PvP Open world sandbox crowd want a AAA Game to call their own, so too do the PVE sandbox players, and when ones comes out that gets close to filling that niche, we want a go too.
I want an open world not a constrained set of corridors, the ability to in small ways affect the world and claim a bit of it as my own, I want dungeons epic stories and yes dammit I want a pony.
I hate this whole "Carebare" idealism that has crept into the PVP crowd, I dont call you all gank obsessed griefers, even though that is what a good number are, I dont want to claim a game as my own, I would love something like Archage with the PvP side on the north island and the two other islands PvE oriented....
It may or may not happen, but thats why, just because you want one side of the coin doesnt mean we dont want the other.
Promoting thought a new Gaming video blog http://www.youtube.com/user/quinnthalas discussing games, gamers and the internet with gameplay footage as background.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Originally posted by Kyleran Because without us, you don't have any victims to prey on. Be honest, you are not looking for a fair fight, so you'd better give me a better than even chance to avoid or flee a conflict or I won't play.
There are pvp and pve players out there with a little thicker skin and can take it just as well as receive it, while some just can't take it, just sayin'.
In general the two types of players seem to come down to people who lose with grace and those who just can't stand losing anything, ever......ever...........................ever.
I'm talking about the guy that wins 10 times and loses ONCE and quits, rages and throws a tantrum cause he lost once. Some people just can't handle losing, it's more a real life issue than an online one.
Originally posted by rojo6934 Originally posted by kitarad Content locusts are not necessarily carebears. People who try to level fast and grind levels usually do it for PvP. See recent release of ESO people grinding for veteran ranks for PvP. So those consuming content fast are not carebears.
I think it's incorrect to assume it's the same people complaining.
I'm trying to understand why you find that "theme park" players are claiming every game as their own?
I understand that there are players that want open-world PVP, but I find it is a shrinking community. When a game have full on PVP, the population will start high, because I think a majority want the freedom to do just that. Do what you want. Attack who you want. Being able to take down players talking smack etc.
But soon after such a game launches, there are always the few who outshines the many, and those few will dominate the game, and thereby take away what the majority wanted, which was freedom to do what they want. Make sense? And the community will because of that, shrink fast, and often not able to sustain the game.
And than we have the elite left. The game they have is no longer the game they want, as there is not enough players and they will move on to the next one. I really believe a full PVP sandbox game will never last long.
Take DayZ. I love the game. But after getting killed so many times, I'm losing interest. Yes, I'm not good enough. Yes, I can try to become better, but there will always be someone better, or I will be the one killing others multiple times. It is a fantastic game. It sold tons of copies in pre-development, but I predict it won't last long. The majority will become tired of being the one feeding the elite, and will leave.
Do I think there is a solution for us? Because I think most of us, want the same. A sandbox game, that offer the opportunities to do what we want, incl. attacking players.
Perhaps...what I think is missing in those games, is for attacking/killing another player, it should be out of need, not out of want or fun. So, there should be minimum gain, or a high penalty.
I don't know, but I read they were planning to add the following too World of Darkness; A humanity factor. If you attack another player, and kill them, it hurts your humanity. Enough of those, and there will be a hefty penalty on your character (I think in WoD, you perma died/lost your character).
Maybe add a Casus Belli. That if you have a reason (perhaps through a quest, a war, a player attacks you, a player stole from you or another good reason to attack a player), you will not get a humanity penalty.
Would that work? I don't know. But I think that would be a game I would love. I could fight another player if needed, like really needed. Wouldn't that be freedom for all?
PvE is the real game for grown ups
PvP is a mini game for kids with ocd
So a researcher does a study based upon his own personal experience...LOLWUT?
There is just so much wrong with that statement it is not even funny.
Yep, you got me OP. You are a 'researcher' and this 'research' is totally not from ACME University with professor Xavier. ROFL!
Gdemami -Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Originally posted by jpnz So a researcher does a study based upon his own personal experience...LOLWUT? There is just so much wrong with that statement it is not even funny. Yep, you got me OP. You are a 'researcher' and this 'research' is totally not from ACME University with professor Xavier. ROFL!
Tend to agree, the OP's premise has too many glaring flaws to be considered legitimate
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
No matter how much people try to claim that the game make for they own ,
(PVPers or ... whatever sorry but i hate the term carebears because it sound like insult other and prefer call them casual player )
the change of game depend on game developers , if the developers aim to make the game for you to play then it you.
If the PVP ruin the game design balance then they have to remove them. Simple
For example if i make a game about trading , i put on PVP to make it interest.
But if the PVP get out of what i intent to use it on the design and cause harm to other element , i will put restraint on PVP or change how it work .
Like some open world PVP out here , the designer use PVP as resource problem solution .
But if the player just run around and kill people for nothing then it must be bad. So we have to put the risk on PK action.
But then problem pop out , the so call PVPer (PK) never accept the risk .
It raise a question who ready carebears here .
I don't again PVP , but i want interest PVP where the slaves have change to win again king.
A pvp game with only paper and scissors are simple bad PVP.