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!

A true sandbox FFA PVP MMORPG can only survive if the "carebears" stays.

1234689

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by mayito7777

     

     

    Sadly that is the truth. I played Eve for few days and I quit playing not because of ganking but because I didnt like the long wait for skill learning.

    well .. i did too but i quite because of the easy-mode pve combat, and lackbuster very boring missions.

  • mayito7777mayito7777 Saint Cloud, FLPosts: 636Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by mayito7777

     

     

    Sadly that is the truth. I played Eve for few days and I quit playing not because of ganking but because I didnt like the long wait for skill learning.

    well .. i did too but i quite because of the easy-mode pve combat, and lackbuster very boring missions.

    That too, I did couple of the go kill pirate missions and it was like what?

    want 7 free days of playing? Try this

    http://www.swtor.com/r/ZptVnY

  • HorusraHorusra maryland, MDPosts: 2,583Member Uncommon
    Is you are into the economic side of Eve there is no other game I can think of with that depth. For that they might tolerate limited pvp.
  • SoandsosoSoandsoso Richmond Hill, ONPosts: 533Member

    If Eve didn't have carebears mining and making the ships and modules, what would the so called pvp'rs fly?

     

    Eve works because pvp'rs blow stuff up and industrialists make stuff to get blown up.

     

    Remove either one and it collapses.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    Originally posted by askdaboss
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Horusra
    So all the speeders follow the rules. Cheating on taxes. Lying. People do not generally follow rules. People for the most part walk the line of rules not self created and will often cross that line whenever they can and reasonably think they will get away with it.

    The majority of any human population does follow the rules, whatever those rules happen to be for that given population.  That doesn't mean everyone follows the rules.

    Well, I will tell you the major difference between "real world" and "virtual world" regarding that topic, though.

    In a virtual world, the developer is "god" and creates the actual "physical world limitations". So for example, in GW1, nobody can jump. Because the developer said so.

    Now in the real world, say some hypothetical country decides that, from today, nobody can jump. You can still do it, as in "physically" do it. There isn't an inherent limitation that prevents you from doing so. And so the best way to prevent people from jumping is to trying to catch them jumping and punishing them for doing so.

     

    Which is my point.

    "Carebears" want option 1, where the world sets the limits so that everything is fair from the start.

    I prefer option 2, where the player sets the limits (the developer allows for additional actions in their framework) and the players can also be punished for their actions if they get caught.

     

    If they get caught?  You mean after they "go red"?  How is that a player setting limits?  The developer is obviously setting the limits, and players are responding to stimuli in the environment, just like they would in any other game.  The developers of game "option 2" have just set a different set of limits and allowed a different set of things to do.

     

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

  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Chicago, ILPosts: 2,238Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by askdaboss
    Originally posted by Beatnik59

    Just like the "reward" can't be cast in rational, quantifiable terms, the "risk" can't be cast that way either.  If you listen to the high-sec gankers, they never gank with characters they care about.  They always use a throwaway character, an alt trained specifically for the task, who won't mind being blown up or podded.  And they have enough ISK to not care about the loss of some battlecruiser.  Some, like the Goons, are so rich, losses due to Concordokken have no meaning anymore.

    The fact that they are using throw away characters rather proves the level of "risk" is appropriate, since it generates a fear from the player of losing their most important character. If there wasn't any risk in doing so, they would be using their main characters.

    It would seem the problem is instead they can take risks with "new" characters, which they do not care about.

    It is an appropriate disincentive if you care.  But if you don't give a sh!t, either because you never did, or you bought a "get out of giving a sh!t free" card, it doesn't matter.

    Probably the griefer's greatest advantage is his ability not to give a sh!t about playing the game.  I've seen it in games like Minecraft and Space Engineers especially, where the game tends to attract builders instead of destroyers.  When you just don't give a sh!t about anything but making players miserable, you tend to be very good at making players miserable.  Players who care about what's going on don't do that.

    And that's the problem I have when the PKers accuse the so-called carebears for "taking the game too seriously," as if not giving a sh!t is how you ought to play.  The problem, as I see it, isn't so much that players take the game too seriosly.  It's that there is a certain contingent that doesn't take the game seriously enough.  Because when we start down that road, nothing good ever gets done, nothing substantial ever gets gained and there's no reason to even stay.

    And, really, the only reason a lot of l0l0gaggerz in EVE, or anywhere else, get away with doing what they do is because they just don't care...not about immersion, not about reputation, not about playing the game.  They just want cheap gimmicks and l0lz.  And, sadly, part of the problem with having complex systems, like what you find in MMOs, is that they are always very vulnerable to getting mucked up by folks who just want cheap lulz.  After all, the combat engine doesn't make the distinction between "legit" and "cheap."  One in-game pile of currency is just as good as the other.  And a publisher isn't going to care if you spend your $15 to grief, or if you spend your $15 to play the game they gave you.

    __________________________
    "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
    --Arcken

    "...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
    --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.

    "It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
    --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones
     

     

    If they get caught?  You mean after they "go red"?  How is that a player setting limits?  The developer is obviously setting the limits, and players are responding to stimuli in the environment, just like they would in any other game.  The developers of game "option 2" have just set a different set of limits and allowed a different set of things to do.

     

    Yeh .. it boils down to the dev set up different rules, and players choose what game that want to play.

     

  • TorikTorik London, ONPosts: 2,343Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by askdaboss
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by Horusra
    So all the speeders follow the rules. Cheating on taxes. Lying. People do not generally follow rules. People for the most part walk the line of rules not self created and will often cross that line whenever they can and reasonably think they will get away with it.

    The majority of any human population does follow the rules, whatever those rules happen to be for that given population.  That doesn't mean everyone follows the rules.

    Well, I will tell you the major difference between "real world" and "virtual world" regarding that topic, though.

    In a virtual world, the developer is "god" and creates the actual "physical world limitations". So for example, in GW1, nobody can jump. Because the developer said so.

    Now in the real world, say some hypothetical country decides that, from today, nobody can jump. You can still do it, as in "physically" do it. There isn't an inherent limitation that prevents you from doing so. And so the best way to prevent people from jumping is to trying to catch them jumping and punishing them for doing so.

     

    Which is my point.

    "Carebears" want option 1, where the world sets the limits so that everything is fair from the start.

    I prefer option 2, where the player sets the limits (the developer allows for additional actions in their framework) and the players can also be punished for their actions if they get caught.

    I actually prefer option 2 as well in theory but in practice option 2 is just not workable.  PvP games just do not allow players to implement the levels of punishment that would be suffiicient enough to discourage 'inappropriate' behaviour.  Thus if you want to get rid of that behaviour, you end up supporting option 1 instead.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Torik
     

    I actually prefer option 2 as well in theory but in practice option 2 is just not workable.  PvP games just do not allow players to implement the levels of punishment that would be suffiicient enough to discourage 'inappropriate' behaviour.  Thus if you want to get rid of that behaviour, you end up supporting option 1 instead.

    In fact, the whole discussion is weird. If you don't want a behavior, just make it impossible in a game. Why have this whole thing about punishment and what-not.

    If you want the behavior, why punish it?

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,870Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by askdaboss

    The fact that people have different risk tolerance doesn't change anything to the point. People who have high risk tolerance will attempt risky actions, people with low tolerance will be conservative.How is that different from real life and how does that not work?

    It does change everything!

    Risk tolerance implies what RISK level is acceptable for player, meaning that players will not engage in risk activity regardless of reward.

    The blinding proof are "carebears", your player base majority.


    It is one of the first steps in risk management - setting up your risk tolerance, assets you do not want to risk no matter what. Players have this bar generely very low, they do not like to lose their pixels.

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,870Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by lizardbones

    A "carebear" is less likely to pick up and play Eve than someone who likes both PvE and PvP content, but primarily engages in PvE content.

    Erm, you haven't played EVE then because people there complain about carebears all the time :)

    If player's concern is primarily crafting over shooting other players, he is a crafter.

    But if your argument does not hold and support your stance, invent a new term!

    "He is not a crafter, he is a "casual PVPer""!


    And voila, the game is suddenly full of PVPers!


    Same story:

    "The game is a themepark."

    "No no, it it's a sandpark! It has got sandbox features!, etc."

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,870Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by mayito7777

    I played Eve for few days and I quit playing not because of ganking but because I didnt like the long wait for skill learning.

    Why were you waiting isntead of playing the game...?

  • TorikTorik London, ONPosts: 2,343Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Torik
     

    I actually prefer option 2 as well in theory but in practice option 2 is just not workable.  PvP games just do not allow players to implement the levels of punishment that would be suffiicient enough to discourage 'inappropriate' behaviour.  Thus if you want to get rid of that behaviour, you end up supporting option 1 instead.

    In fact, the whole discussion is weird. If you don't want a behavior, just make it impossible in a game. Why have this whole thing about punishment and what-not.

    If you want the behavior, why punish it?

    Exactly.

    A lot of the 'in-game punishment' suggestions are really just an attempt to fool people into thinking that the issue is not as big a problem as it is and gives the players an illusion of power.  Generally any in-game anti-griefing punishments that would satisfy my desire for 'justice', would result in the griefers quitting the game enmasse.  

    It reminds me of how CCP tried to 'soft ban' certain newbie-unfriendly behaviours in EVE.  In the end they gave up and instituted an out-of-game ban for those behaviours.  

  • YoungCaesarYoungCaesar San Diego, CAPosts: 297Member Uncommon
    I love this thread logic, FFA pvp games can only survive if carebears stay, but why would carebears play a FFA pvp game in the first place?
  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 18,045Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Stammerer
    Originally posted by Loke666

    It does work and is indeed the easiest way but it isn't the best. 

    The best would be to have PvP good enough to attract a large crowd without any PvE at all, focusing a game means you can focus the mechanics purely on PvP and don't have to worry about stuff like AI, taunts and so on.

    The problem there is that no MMO really have done that well enough which means that PvP games are small niche games.

    And don't give me the crap about people prefer PvE, FPS games started out as PvE games as well (with "Doom") but as soon as they got the mechanics good enough they attracted the majority of the players.

    You just can't take the mechanics from Wow, EQ or whatever and use them directly for a PvP game, they are really made with PvE in focus and the other purely PvP mechanics ain't good enough of PvP would have been a lot larger.

    I think the difference with most multi-player FPS games is that they are generally designed on the basis that it is a level playing field based on skill.  I will happily spend hours running around shooting people in Halo.  

    As soon as you introduce levels and gear that gives some players a huge advantage over others then the small percentage of players who choose to gank without any deterrent will ruin the game for many people.  

    But as you say, removing the PVE focus of these games could go a long way toward improving some of these issues.   

    That is half my point yes. The second (as you seems to get) is that the powergap destroys PvP.

    Yes, there should be difference between noobs and vets in a MMO but not what we have today. For good PvP the powergap should be about that a really badly playing vet would be just beaten by a brilliantly playing noob, together with a lot more customization possibilities for the vet.

    And that isn't what most so called "hardcore" PvP fans want to hear but it would make combat a lot more fun.

    Skip PvE, lower the powergap and put more focus in making guild owned fortresses and dungeons. 

  • TorikTorik London, ONPosts: 2,343Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by YoungCaesar
    I love this thread logic, FFA pvp games can only survive if carebears stay, but why would carebears play a FFA pvp game in the first place?

    Answer:  The game offers gameplay options that cannot be found in another game and thus players are wiling to 'suffer' through the FFA PvP. 

     

    Personally, I have tried playing EVE twice over the last ten years but after months of playing the PvP aspect just got to be too much for me.  I like a ton of stuff about EVE but not the FFA PvP. 

     

  • kaiser3282kaiser3282 Phoenix, AZPosts: 2,662Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by Stammerer
    Originally posted by Loke666

    It does work and is indeed the easiest way but it isn't the best. 

    The best would be to have PvP good enough to attract a large crowd without any PvE at all, focusing a game means you can focus the mechanics purely on PvP and don't have to worry about stuff like AI, taunts and so on.

    The problem there is that no MMO really have done that well enough which means that PvP games are small niche games.

    And don't give me the crap about people prefer PvE, FPS games started out as PvE games as well (with "Doom") but as soon as they got the mechanics good enough they attracted the majority of the players.

    You just can't take the mechanics from Wow, EQ or whatever and use them directly for a PvP game, they are really made with PvE in focus and the other purely PvP mechanics ain't good enough of PvP would have been a lot larger.

    I think the difference with most multi-player FPS games is that they are generally designed on the basis that it is a level playing field based on skill.  I will happily spend hours running around shooting people in Halo.  

    As soon as you introduce levels and gear that gives some players a huge advantage over others then the small percentage of players who choose to gank without any deterrent will ruin the game for many people.  

    But as you say, removing the PVE focus of these games could go a long way toward improving some of these issues.   

    That is half my point yes. The second (as you seems to get) is that the powergap destroys PvP.

    Yes, there should be difference between noobs and vets in a MMO but not what we have today. For good PvP the powergap should be about that a really badly playing vet would be just beaten by a brilliantly playing noob, together with a lot more customization possibilities for the vet.

    And that isn't what most so called "hardcore" PvP fans want to hear but it would make combat a lot more fun.

    Skip PvE, lower the powergap and put more focus in making guild owned fortresses and dungeons. 

    Funny thing is, you have exactly that part in red in games like Darkfall yet people still complain.

    In DFO you had a lot of good players who at some point created alts or rerolled new characters and while still in low end gear with crap stats were going around just destroying people still on their main character with months worth of stats and some of the better gear. Even after I had only been playing a few weeks with half assed stats and running around in leather armor and r20-30s I was still capable of taking down people with maxed stats + dragon armor.

    In DFUW, it became slightly more stat & gear based than DFO but you also had the addition of safe zones which offered enough prowess in them to practically max out your main class & stats within a week or so, 2 weeks if you were somewhat casual, and plenty of resources to make some decent gear. By the time you were forced to leave the safe zones to progress you were at or above the threshold of being considered PvP viable unless you willingly chose to leave early. Yet you still had people raging in chat daily about people attacking "noobs" outside the SZ as if someone was forcing them to go out undergeared and low on stats.

    Both games offered a setting where skill wins out over gear and stats. You could be maxed out and in the best gear, but if you cant hit someone and are constantly getting hit by them, youre going to lose. Just like in an FPS. Yet there was still the constant whining about power gaps and being undergeared by bad players.

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon

    I agree with the OP. I've heard PvP is only fun when there's fresh meat to gank. Once that runs out, the server pretty much dies.



    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    This issue with most PvP MMO's is the community. They're most often vile...


    On the one hand I agree with you; one reason I left Eve was the toxic profanity. But I'm sure there are great, loyal, hard-working people there. I wish Eve would make a fantasy themed game!


    On Rallos Zek (EQ Server) in 2000, among the asshats were some very dedicated and loyal players.



    Originally posted by Tolmos
    ...One of the most balanced systems that I saw was that, when you died, your inventory dropped. Not your gear, or what you are wearing- just your inventory; whatever you picked up since the last time you banked...


    Great system and argument! Let's add outlaws too. Gank some folks and the only bank which will talk to you lies in a distant isle; getting to it is dangrous and so is being there.


    Alternatively, the value of items stolen could be tallied up and offered as bounty. Higher bounty means stronger NPC hunters; and death to them means losing all carried/worn gear.



    Originally posted by Beatnik59
    ...part of the problem with having complex (anti-ganking systems), is that they are always very vulnerable to getting mucked up by folks who just want cheap lulz...


    Brilliant post Beatnik59. Kinda like how a $million of defense can be overcome by $50 of offense.

    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

  • askdabossaskdaboss LondonPosts: 631Member Common
    Originally posted by Torik
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Torik
     

    I actually prefer option 2 as well in theory but in practice option 2 is just not workable.  PvP games just do not allow players to implement the levels of punishment that would be suffiicient enough to discourage 'inappropriate' behaviour.  Thus if you want to get rid of that behaviour, you end up supporting option 1 instead.

    In fact, the whole discussion is weird. If you don't want a behavior, just make it impossible in a game. Why have this whole thing about punishment and what-not.

    If you want the behavior, why punish it?

    Exactly.

    A lot of the 'in-game punishment' suggestions are really just an attempt to fool people into thinking that the issue is not as big a problem as it is and gives the players an illusion of power.  Generally any in-game anti-griefing punishments that would satisfy my desire for 'justice', would result in the griefers quitting the game enmasse.  

    It reminds me of how CCP tried to 'soft ban' certain newbie-unfriendly behaviours in EVE.  In the end they gave up and instituted an out-of-game ban for those behaviours.  

    Isn't it what most PvE and (real) PvP players would want though? For griefers to leave.

    I mean, unless you care about griefers, having them leaving the game en-masse is exactly the desired outcome - for PvE players as much as ("proper") PvP players.

     

    About not wanting the behaviour:

    It's not about "not wanting the behaviour", it's about giving the player freedom and the tools to enjoy the game in their own way... While discouraging every player to engage in risk free behaviour (and thus, continuous) which is detrimental to the enjoyment of the game for another chunk of the players.

    In other words, if a player could kill a player but doing so (and getting caught, in defined circumstances) could mean losing your progress, items, account wide permanent penalties, etc. then a lot of players would think twice about doing it (instead of griefers able to kill easy picks without any penalties).

    You would also get players that would band together and take the risk for the adrenaline, enjoyment (and hopefully rewards) of playing this type of character. Thus high risk, high reward.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by askdaboss

    You would also get players that would band together and take the risk for the adrenaline, enjoyment (and hopefully rewards) of playing this type of character. Thus high risk, high reward.

    If the whole point is just to have high risk and high reward, you don't even need pvp to do it ... why go through all the trouble of discourage a behavior, make it high risk, and at the same time knowing if anyone is taking this route, he may be pissing off the pve players?

    Just make a high risk, high reward pvp-only game, or pve-only game.

     

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,549Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bolthar

    I find it funny how FFA PvPers tend to think that us PvEers are overreacting. From the first coining of the negative "carebear" connotation to the numerous unwarranted deaths I have incurred throughout my times playing PvP enabled games I  am not one to just overreact on a whim. I try and hold my own on any attack but it is almost ALWAYS someone who is MAX level picking on me as I am leveling up. Something about this dichotomy does not sit well with me. Walk away from any PvP game for 10 minutes and more than likely your dead by someone provided the server population is high enough. Yeah now that is fun being killed when your not even at the computer.

    What has occurred in the past -

    Death while AFK.

    Death while I was just PvE leveling.

    Death while traveling to a location.

    Death while waiting at a dungeon for a party.

    What I find funny is that RARELY if ever was this a valid fair fight. It was always someone WAY over me or it was a group of people against just me. Almost all PvP games the rules are skewed to the attacker in such a way that it makes it not worth being a non attacker. Attacker gets all your loot, Attacker gets all your inventory, Attacker gets some minor debuff for an hour, Attacker gets sent to some Jail where they can still do quests and get experience points, and the worst of them all Attacker has no consequence at all.

    How are ANY of these rules to make it worth it for the "carebears" that you guys so lovingly call us? Here is my suggestion.

    FFA Open world PVP -

    1) Level difference makes a direct impact on what is dropped from inventory. The higher the difference the less loot you will get.

    2) Each PvP death by anyone over X levels gives the attackee a token said token would then be useable in the future for a gain of some kind (along the lines of a exp boost elixir or something to compensate the death in some way)

    3) Disallow PvP attacking of anyone who is currently in a PvE engagement (e.g. crafting, gathering, or battle).

    4) Allow for a bounty system where people who are PKed can then go to the board and put the last attackers name on the board and offer bounties. (Can be used in conjunction with number 2 or perhaps make it so the token can be either saved for the use OR used to pput out the bounty).

    5) Make it so the larger the level difference of the kill the larger and longer the debuff the player doing the PKing gets.

    6) Do some kind of AUTO releveling system. Meaning if you target someone who is 37 and your 60+ then your attacks scale down to the attack amount you would be at 37. (This option would eliminate options 1, and 5).

    I think if you did something along these lines and kept PvP around similar leveled players I would be ALOT more willing to play a FFA PvP Open world concept MMO. Of course the rules above would make the PvPers complain and then leave for the most part because a lot of them don't want the fair fight. At least none of the hundreds who have killed me over the years in Open world PvP systems at last. What they for the most part do want is to call us carebears while ganking us and taking our loot making them feel superior about what they do in a video game against others. I stopped playing PvP when I had a guildmate on Ventrilo and I was not chatting and he did the exact attacks I hated on others and I got to listen to the glee in hi voice as he "powned those caebear noobs" and that he "wished he could see them at home crying". Sorry for those of you mature PvPers but this is my experience (that I can't stand) with the PvP community for the most part.

    A bit overdramatic maybe, but that's exactly what happens.

    Excellent post.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • 3-4thElf3-4thElf Elftown, MEPosts: 489Member

    So a game needs content to be successful?

    Yup. I agree.

    Really the pvp hate came from a time when MMOs were growing. I think the community is mature enough now to where there could very well be a free for all loot, player vs player, content driven game without too many people batting an eye.

    It'd just need to be a good design from the start.

    That's the problem tho'.

    a yo ho ho

  • JoeyjojoshabaduJoeyjojoshabadu BuderimPosts: 162Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by 3-4thElf

    So a game needs content to be successful?

    Yup. I agree.

    Really the pvp hate came from a time when MMOs were growing. I think the community is mature enough now to where there could very well be a free for all loot, player vs player, content driven game without too many people batting an eye.

    It'd just need to be a good design from the start.

    That's the problem tho'.

    There is always be the unpleasant minority who will grief and get their jollies ganking considerably weaker enemies though (what % of society are psychopaths/sociopaths?) and these have a disproportionate impact on others gaming experience. I'm with you WRT good design, but part of that has to be a way of preventing this kind of behaviour. Not an easy thing to accomplish.

     

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 18,045Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kaiser3282
    Originally posted by Loke666

    That is half my point yes. The second (as you seems to get) is that the powergap destroys PvP.

    Yes, there should be difference between noobs and vets in a MMO but not what we have today. For good PvP the powergap should be about that a really badly playing vet would be just beaten by a brilliantly playing noob, together with a lot more customization possibilities for the vet.

    And that isn't what most so called "hardcore" PvP fans want to hear but it would make combat a lot more fun.

    Skip PvE, lower the powergap and put more focus in making guild owned fortresses and dungeons. 

    Funny thing is, you have exactly that part in red in games like Darkfall yet people still complain.

    In DFO you had a lot of good players who at some point created alts or rerolled new characters and while still in low end gear with crap stats were going around just destroying people still on their main character with months worth of stats and some of the better gear. Even after I had only been playing a few weeks with half assed stats and running around in leather armor and r20-30s I was still capable of taking down people with maxed stats + dragon armor.

    In DFUW, it became slightly more stat & gear based than DFO but you also had the addition of safe zones which offered enough prowess in them to practically max out your main class & stats within a week or so, 2 weeks if you were somewhat casual, and plenty of resources to make some decent gear. By the time you were forced to leave the safe zones to progress you were at or above the threshold of being considered PvP viable unless you willingly chose to leave early. Yet you still had people raging in chat daily about people attacking "noobs" outside the SZ as if someone was forcing them to go out undergeared and low on stats.

    Both games offered a setting where skill wins out over gear and stats. You could be maxed out and in the best gear, but if you cant hit someone and are constantly getting hit by them, youre going to lose. Just like in an FPS. Yet there was still the constant whining about power gaps and being undergeared by bad players.

    I didn't say that people wouldn't complain, just that it is the right thing to do to get MMO PvP more fun.

    Darkfall do indeed do some things right, but it also have issues and while people were interested at launch I doubt that most people even heard of DFUW.

    With a better engine, less focus on gear (yeah, it isn't much focus compared to game like Wow but there is still a bit too much) and a better UI that game could have become way more popular.

    There will always be some whining no matter what you do, heck even FPS games have whiners (that weapon is OP and so on...) but this is the right way to goif you want to make PvP as popular as PvE...

    Problem is just that even if DF have some good ideas it ain't a good enough game to become really large, they might be on the right track with the powergap but there is a lot more you need to do (like I said in my post on page 3 in this thread).

  • 3-4thElf3-4thElf Elftown, MEPosts: 489Member
    Originally posted by Joeyjojoshabadu
    Originally posted by 3-4thElf

    So a game needs content to be successful?

    Yup. I agree.

    There is always be the unpleasant minority who will grief and get their jollies ganking considerably weaker enemies though (what % of society are psychopaths/sociopaths?) and these have a disproportionate impact on others gaming experience. I'm with you WRT good design, but part of that has to be a way of preventing this kind of behaviour. Not an easy thing to accomplish.

     

     

    Ehh, it's not really that big of a problem tho'. I've played a lot of FFA MMOs and never had as bad a time as some people.

    To use an example from a previous post I think if you're away from your keyboard for 10 minutes in any game you should be punished somehow. When should inattentive gamers be catered to over people looking to simulate a dangerous combative world?

    If developers and the community got behind a 'we're in this together' mentality then they'd find the beauty in playing in a massive multiplayer role playing game. There are other people, different sorts of people, each with their own goal. If your goal is to not die while being logged in and away from keyboard... Then maybe you shouldn't play a computer game?

    I think the people afraid of these scenarios make them almost nightmarish in their heads and blow these little things out of proportion.

    a yo ho ho

Sign In or Register to comment.