cameltosis

About

Username
cameltosis
Location
ipswich
Joined
Visits
1,903
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
1,882
Rank
Epic
Posts
1,674
Badges
46
  • Does everyone hate PvP?

    My summary of why people hate pvp:


    1) Gankers - when a person / people with significantly higher power than you attack you and kill you. In these situations, the gankers interupt the player's game but that player has little/no possibility of winning. There is no positive, only negative, to this experience. This only happens in games with open world pvp where everyone is permanently flagged, i.e. about 1% of MMOs. Not a problem in general, just blown out of proportion. 

    2) Losing - We play for fun and losing isn't fun. Assuming you are an average player, 50% of pvpers are going to be better than you, so you'll lose 50% of the time. Do you really want to spend half your free time losing? Compared to PvE which is designed for you to win 99% of the time. This is something most pvp-haters wont admit to but this is a fundamental mindset problem. Can't be fixed

    3) Competition / Confrontation - PvP by it's nature is competitive. In every fight, you're trying to beat another person or group of people. Some people just aren't competitive by nature and so the whole notion of fighting other people doesn't appeal. Some might admit to this, but its not really a problem, pvp just isn't for everyone

    4) Balance - Pure PvEers often complain that their class got nerfed due to PvP. They hate the fact that developers are balancing classes around PvP. In my experience of MMOs with both, balance happens 95% due to PvE and 5% due to PvP. This has been backed up by the devs (lotro and sw:tor). Ultimately, it sucks when any class gets nerfed. This problem varies developer to developer. In most games, its not a problem and people are just whining, but in other games the devs get over-zealous. Problem works both ways - pvp balance is often screwed due to pve balance tweaks, but pvpers don't shout at the pve'ers as often. 




    Looking at my gaming history, I'd say I spend probably 60% of my time in PvE and 40% in PvP. I'd personally never play a game that didn't have both in some form or another because I value both playstyles, both communities and enjoy interacting with both. There is also a lot of crossover between the two. 

    Problems only arise when one group feels overly entitled (e.g. "this is primarily a pve game, how dare you balance for pvp!") or when developers don't think through their actions properly. It is the last that is the big problem. If you have a game with significant PvE portions but have perma-flagged ow-pvp, you're gonna get gankers, so why enable such a feature to begin with??!?

    Same with balance. Most of the nerfs tend to come not from pvp, but because the devs weren't balancing consistently. For example, when LotRO launched, it was balanced around group v group for PvE. But, it meant the healer sucked to level up, so damage got boosted (for PVE!) which unbalanced pvp (healers OP). Same with a lot of other classes - their solo abilities got boosted for the leveling process, which then unbalanced them in group situations, resulting in nerfs......its never ending. Perfect balance doesn't exist in complicated games, so devs just need to pick either solo (1v1) or group (rock-paper-scissors) right from the start and balance classes that way. 
  • Puzzles in the Dark - Camelot Unchained Columns

    I come from a development background so can fully appreciate the timescales involved.

    The guys at CSE are not only creating a game engine from scratch, but they are developing brand new ideas for mechanics and gameplay. It takes an incredible amount of skill to do all these behind-the-scenes type jobs, but they are absolutely critical to the success of a game like this.

    So yeh, building an engine from scratch and then iterating over these core mechanics was always going to take a long time, but it is 100% worth it in my mind. Once those are all in place and working, then the "easy" stuff can get done - all the artworking, 3d modelling, sound effects, animations etc. All that still takes skill, but the processes and tools are well documented and their is a larger pool of talent available to do the work, so easier to staff up for it.
  • Will We See Smaller MMOs? - General Columns

    Doesn't Dunbars number refer to the number of friendly social connections one can maintain and understand? The number is 150.

    So, how many people do you have to meet in order to generate 150 friends?

    For someone like me, I only like about 1 in 10 people I meet (I can't suffer idiots) and of those 1 in 10, it's rare for me to maintain a stable relationship. So, for me to reach those 150 people referred to by Dunbar, I need to meet about 3000 people.

    Given multiple factions, the anti-social / solo nature of the average gamer, different play times etc, I'd say I would need a server to support at least 10,000 players in order for myself to come close to dunbars number.


    I would say that Dunbars number actually encourages massively open worlds with 1000s of concurrent users! Not the reverse. Smaller games, smaller worlds, more instancing.....you're just making it harder to make friends. If you're server only had 200 people on it, but was the same style of MMO as we have now, you'd never see anyone, maybe have 10 friends and it wouldn't feel like an MMO any more.


    In addition to all of that, you need to bring in psychology and retention rates. Friends keep friends playing games for longer. If you are giving up on MMOs and just making smaller instanced online games like Destiny (which isn't an MMO...), you're making it harder to make friends, harder to be social and thus reducing retention rate. How is that a good thing?


    Finally, I would like to point out that MMOs only have 1 unique selling point now - being MASSIVELY-multiplayer. Every other feature can now be found in other genres.

    So, if you aren't making use of the MMO part, what's the point?
  • MMORPG.com’s Weekly Watercooler: What’s in an Acronym? The MMO Definition Debate a Columns at MMORPG

    OK, so we have Richard Garriott clearing stating that the term MMO is all about the number of players in the same reality (instance / world).

    We have Raph Koster stating that the term MMO was used to identify games that supported more players in the same persistent world than standard multiplayer games (minorly multiplayer) where the current common cap is 250.

    Then we have English comprehension of the term "massively multiplayer online", which tells us the word "massively" applies to the word "multiplayer", so again, its all about the number of players who can play together at the same time and that number is massively bigger than standard multiplayer.


    So, whilst there is no absolute figure, it is clear that the number of players in the same world is the key and that number has to be massively bigger than standard online multiplayer games. For me, that means massively bigger than 128 (common cap for multiplayer games like battlefield), so I'd set it as 500+ or 1000+ in the same world.


    That rules out Destiny and The Division. It rules out mobas. It rules out standard FPS's like COD and Battlefield. It rules out survival games like DayZ. It rules in games like UO, WoW, LotRO, EQ etc.



    So, can we say argument over on the definition now? Can we stop calling Destiny and The Division MMOs? I don't care if this site writes articles on games from other genres, that's fine and the articles are interesting and it's fun to see what features other genres have that could be applied to MMOs. Just, stop calling them MMOs; they aren't. I get really excited when I hear that a new AAA MMO is being developed by a Western company, but then halfway through your article it turns out you're lying and not writing about an MMO. That always leaves me feeling disappointed and it hurts your credibility.

    Being an MMO should be something to aspire to. A persistent virtual world with 500+ concurrent users in it is something we rarely see and should excite us. We just need MMOs to start designing features specifically for 100+ people and then investing in the tech to support it. They don't need to be hardcore features, you don't even need to be grouped, just features that support / encourage as many people as possible (imagine large-scale public quests or rifts, or pvp areas that actually support large numbers).
  • (updated!) Authorities looking at regulating RNG as gambling

    First off, lootboxes that you can buy with money are a form of gambling. This has already been debated by many parliaments around the globe and most / all have admitted it is gambling. 

    The problem is that not all forms of gambling are regulated. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the UK specifically gambling is only regulated by gambling laws when the return is either monetary or there is a guaranteed method of converting the winnings into money. There has already been a specific investigation into lootboxes in the UK, the secretary of state was involved and it has been discussed in the house of commons. 


    Here is what the UK government said:

    "Consumers are also protected by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. This includes a requirement on businesses not to subject anyone to misleading or aggressive marketing practices, or, for example, direct exhortation to buy products, such as games content, including in-game purchases such as loot boxes. The government is committed to ensuring that consumers are properly protected and that children's vulnerability and inexperience is not exploited by aggressive commercial practices."


    Its the direct exhortation to buy products that currently determines the legality of lootboxes. When they contain cosmetic items only, they're fine as there is no compelling reason to buy them. When they contain direct improvements, like BF2 does, then we enter mirky waters. The game is basically telling players to buy lootboxes so they can be better. The counter argument is that you can earn everything without paying money. So, to take a case to court over something like the BF2 lootboxes, you have to be able to successfully argue that earning through gameplay is unreasonable and thus the lootboxes are seen as required. That is a tough argument to make in a legal context. 


    Personally, I'm all in favour of more regulation. I hate lootboxes, they were a stupid idea even before we could buy them with money, they are even worse now. So, anything that can be done to remove them from gaming is a good thing. 
    YashaXSlapshot1188ScotGdemamiScotchUpBeatnik59MaxBaconlaseritJacobinTuor7
  • Camelot Unchained - 500 Player Battles - Possible?

    I'm pretty tech-ignorant, so I'm looking for some expert opinions.  The Kickstarter for Camelot Unchained states that their goal is to "Maintain an absolute minimum of 30 FPS in battles of up to 500 people."  That's why they're building a custom engine:  no one else, apparently, has built an available engine that can do this.  My question is, is this even feasible with modern technology?  For a small team working with a relatively small budget?  Have others, especially AAA developers, tried and failed to achieve such a lofty goal?  I'm wondering if problems achieving this base programming goal are part of the reason that the game is still in a pre-alpha state after four years.  Again, I'm very ignorant of how this all works, so I'm looking for the opinions of programmers or network pros that know a lot about this.
    I work in IT - I was a programmer and have worked on things as small as apps and websites and as large as military software in aircraft. I currently manage a team of developers working on web technologies. 

    I have also worked in the games industry, albeit only for 6 months in QA, so I have a small amount of insight into games development and used to chat to our dev team quite a bit. 

    That said, I'm in no way an expert in game engines - I did build a physics engine for my university dissertation, but it sucked!


    From my understanding of MMO games engines, there are 3 main areas of difficulty when scaling up the large amounts of players. 

    1) Data Transfer

    Every time I perform an action in game, my PC has to transmit my actions to the server, the server has to acknowledge receipt, and then the server has to send my action plus any further outcomes to everyone who needs to know. In a 500 player battle, my 1 action has to be transmitted to 499 other players. This needs to happen quickly, otherwise the game feels unresponsive. 

    This is probably the easiest hurdle to overcome. The amount of data being transferred is actually small, it is just very frequent. You can optimise the data to keep it small (you're only transferring text messages essentially), you can probably compress it too and I imagine for security purposes, it is probably encrypted. Internet speeds are fast enough that bandwidth is unlikely to be an issue. 

    So, on data transfer, yes, 500+ is easily doable. 


    2) Data Processing

    Lets say I use an AoE skill. Something has to process what my base damage is (so, need to process stats, skill modifiers etc), then calculate who is in range of me, then calculate the damage I do to those people. The more people involved in a battle, the more potential number crunching that needs to happen.

    The primary challenge here is where does the processing take place and keeping it synchronised. If all the processing gets done server side, then it means you have greater control over the synchronisation (you can ensure all processing happens within the same GCD) and thus everyone gets the same results at the same time, but this does require some pretty beefy servers. 

    The alternative is to move some of that processing to the client. For example, when using my AoE skill, my client could process the base damage and then transmit that to the server, which would then determine who it hits. The server could then transfer the hits to my enemies clients, which could then calculate the actual damage caused. 

    This spreads the processing load out, however, it makes synchronising everything harder. If the processing happens on the server, then all calculations are handled at the point of arrival on the server, but by distributing the calculations, I get the first one on my machine, a second one on the server, a third on my enemies machine, plus the wait time for data to transfer from my pc -> server -> enemy pc -> back to server -> back to my pc. 

    That said, this is all achievable. 

    Computers are just big logic machines and combat mechanics are all logic based. A standard processor can process millions of calculations a second, so if you've properly coded your engine and have a suitable network of servers, there should be nothing standing in your way. It is still a challenge - optimisation of code is always a challenge - but I see nothing that would stand in their way. 


    3) Graphics

    This, in my opinion, is the toughest nut to crack. When we experience lag in MMOs, it is hardly ever the server or network speeds that cause it, it is almost always graphics lag. 

    As I understand, when rendering a frame your computer has to first build a complete 3D representation of everything on your screen. This means calculating the relative positions of everything nearby by loading in the models, calculating positions and then sorting out things like overlaps / intersections etc. It then has to load in the textures for each face that is visible. Then, it will decide what you can actually see, then render that image. Then it applies post-processing effects like AA etc. 

    With small scale games, the developer remains in almost complete control of what needs to be rendered. The devs know all of the environment and can make accurate guessing as to the number of people and gear you will need to render at any given moment. This makes optimising easier. It is also the reason why so many games are getting smaller in terms of level design etc - by keeping it small, they can increase the graphics quality as it means processing similar amounts of data. 

    With an MMO, the developer is no longer in control. They can still control the environment, but the number of players is variable. It is far easier for your graphics card to process and render 1 person than it is 500+. This sort of graphics processing is also restricted to taking place on your PC - a server can't really help you out.

    Now, there are various techniques that can be used to improve graphics performance. Sharing textures is one way - you don't need so much RAM to store textures if textures are shared, or using algorithms to process models, rather than loading a model itself (e.g. using tessellation). The easiest way is to simply reduce the polycount so there is less to process. 


    Admittedly, my knowledge of graphics is pretty old, so everything I've just written may be wrong or simply out of date. But, I do believe that graphics is going to be the hardest thing to maintain when it comes to large scale battles. It is not a problem that CSE can solve simply by throwing hardware at the issue, because the hardware is our own PC hardware and thus out of their control. 

    CSE also have an added complication with their CUBE system. This is going to allow us to design and build our own structures in the real world, so not only will CSE not control the number of players, they also won't control all of the environment. 


    I still remain confident that they will achieve this. Working in their favour is the relative simplicity of their environments and lack of NPCs. With trees, forests, hills, streams etc, they can super-optimise the way those types of environments are processed, freeing up more time for processing players and player structures. 

    I would definitely be curious to hear from CSE as to how their engine will handle the graphics of large scale fights. 
    TheAmazingDwarfGdemamifrancis_baudDiegoMarquezNibsPurplePoloPlayerJamesGoblinjimmywolftime007
  • Camelot Unchained - Sailing Against Time - MMORPG.com

    Wizardry said:
    I noticed a word i used to see a lot and have completely laughed at of late because  i know how gamer's play these mmorpg's but i am still very curious.
    That word is FUN...so truly curious here because i still yet to understand the attraction to this game,what will be this game's FUN factor that i or anyone else can't get in the already multitude of games out there?

    I get this real feeling watching game supporters that it is alot like music,sometimes people support music groups or types just to be different,also just like people dying their hair or wearing earrings where they don't belong,people just need to feel umm what's the term like a rebel or just to be different than the rest of the crowd.
    Me i am just that plain ol Joe err Bob looking for a quality and yet yikes "FUN"game to play.To me Fun is in the systems,does a game offer me something unique and different so that i can THINK a bit,manage my resources and perhaps utilize team work in combat.I also at this point MUST have no hand holding markers of any kind,so to make it simple,a fully immersive game,nothing that just looks like computer code tossed into a generated world.
    From everything I've seen and read about this game, the fun comes from two main sources:

    1) RvRvR (i.e. combat)

    It's a PvP game, focused on 3 realms fighting over territory. So, you'll be spending a lot of time teaming up with friends / randoms and fighting other people. Now, of course there are a lot of MMOs with PvP, some even have 3 way territory control (DAoC, ESO), so I'll try to go into what sets this apart and why I think it'll be fun:
    • Tab-targeting - CU is going against the modern trends and keeping traditional tab-targetting in place. With all the action combat MMOs out at the moment, this immediately sets it apart and personally I'll find it way more fun
    • Asymmetrical classes - the classes aren't mirrored between the three realms, plus there are loads of them. This makes it good for replayability as each class in each realm should play very differently to one another. 
    • Horizontal Progression - CU is aiming to remove power gaps by having horizontal gear and skill progression. This is very rare, but should mean that you can contribute and enjoy yourself right from the start, rather than having to get thrashed for months whilst you rank up. 
    • Ability Builder - when you rank up, you don't just unlock new skills like a standard MMO, you unlock skill components. You then "make" new skills. So, one melee DPS might combine components to make a really strong single target attack with a bleed effect, whilst a different melee dps might combine components to make a weak AoE attack that slows people. (I may have got the ability builder a bit wrong, but it's along these lines). 
    • Territory Control - in most PvP games, you attack fixed objectives and when you click on a flag or kill a boss, it becomes yours. But, nothing really changes, you just own it. In CU, a lot of buildings are destructible and the community can design and build new ones. In addition, when you capture a zone, the whole zone is floating and floats over to connect with the rest of your realm. This means a constantly changing landscape to fight over. 
    • Massively Multiplayer - its sad to say, but most MMOs aren't designed to be massively multiplayer. CU is. It's designed to support battles with 1000+ players on the screen. Most MMOs die when you reach 50 players, let alone 1000. 
    CU will therefore have a very complex and deep meta game, combined with a deep combat system that focuses on player skill over gear. Such a game doesn't exist on the market, certainly not at the scale CU is aiming for. 


    2) Crafting (i.e. C.U.B.E)

    I've not really looked at regular crafting, only at CUBE. CUBE is essentially a CAD program that allows you to design new buildings and structures. You use preset items to design your structure, but it is pretty freeform. You then save your design as a blueprint which is then available ingame. You can then go out into the world and build that structure. 

    So, as an individual, you might design a small house in CUBE and then go find some quiet corner to build it. Later, you decide you want an outbuilding so you design it and build it next to your house. You might join a large guild and have the main crafter design an epic fortress, then team up to build it over a week or two near the frontier. 

    Then, as the realm war shifts territories, those buildings become usable. The other realm might lay siege to your fortress, resulting in some epic keep battles with the walls being torn down, holes knocked through etc. 2 weeks later, the other realm has captured your zone and built their own forts for you to fight over. 

    If you're a pure crafter, you might build yourself a trading centre away from the frontiers. Other traders setup shop in the same place and all of a sudden you've got a vibrant player-made village where your realm comes to do business. 

    If you're not a crafter at all, no worries - just grab yourself some siege equipment and go and knock down other people's creations!



    I'm sure there are plenty of other unique features that are fun, but these are the two reasons I'm joining. 
  • Is Destiny 2 an MMO:Poll

    Torval said:
    Torval said:
    By the way where is it written that massively means hundreds or more? I'm only asking since we're being sticklers for facts and not feelings.
    That is horrible reasoning. I asked for facts not feelings or manufactured numbers which is exactly what you spewed back out at me. I've heard all the fantasy logic before, but people keep throwing out numbers like they're facts that mean something. They're not.

    Anway, So if Richard Garriott is the person who defines what an MMO is. And Shroud of the Avatar, which is an mmo, has a lower player cap per zone than your manufactured 250 player number then that would mean that almost all multiplayer games are mmos and @TheScavenger is right saying D2 is an mmo. You shot yourself in the foot bringing Garriott as the MMO authority into the argument. He may have said one thing at one time in the distant past, but actions his actions with SotA show differently.

    Other than multiplayer means 2+ people and that massively is an adverb you've not made any ground. Those were obvious and didn't need pointed out in the first place. Everything else you said is unsubstantiated conjecture.
    First, I don't know the details about Shroud of the Avatar, I've never played it and their website is short on detail. Garriott's number of 250 refers to the same virtual world, but that world can encompass multiple zones. So, even if a zone has a cap of 100 players, as long as there are multiple zones all belonging to the same persistent virtual world, he's good. Also, his statement of 250 was made this year, on this website, when mmorpg.com asked him directly to define what MMO means. He was also backed up by Raph Koster, the mmorpg.com staff and most of the commenters. 


    Second, most people who mis-label games as an MMO do not understand what an adverb is. I'm glad you do, but so many people on this forum do not understand which is why I repeat it a lot. Most people on this site who misuse the MMO label believe the word "massively" applies to the game as a whole, and not just the multiplayer aspect. This is the primary cause of confusion. 


    Third, "massive" and it's adverb "massively" have specific meanings. Again, I'm glad you understand them but it is very clear from these forums that a lot of people don't. To call something massive, you are making a comparison to something else. Unless otherwise specified, that comparison is made to other similar things. A massive building is a building that is significantly bigger than other buildings. A massive elephant is an elephant that is significantly bigger than other elephants. So, with MMOs, it can be called massively multiplayer if the multiplayer aspect is significantly bigger than other multiplayer games. 



    None of this is horrible reasoning. This reasoning is all factual. It is just basic English comprehension. This sort of thing is taught to 12 year olds with no difficulty. I don't know why you are struggling with it. I mean, is something I've written incorrect?

    The only thing you can justifiably argue against is that I have not given you a hard number for the average player cap in online multiplayer games. I am afraid I have not had the time to go out, find every single multiplayer game, find the player cap and come up with an average. So, instead I'll just give you some of the most popular, based off Steam's best selling multiplayer games

    PUBG - 100
    D:OS2 - 4
    Spacehulk Deathwing - 4
    Rocket League - 8
    Battlefleet Gothic Armada - 4
    Farming Simulator 17 - 16
    GTAV - 32
    CS:GO - 64
    F1 2017 - 20
    Blood Bowl 2 - 2
    Rainbow Six Siege - 10
    Football Manager 2017 - 22 (couldn't track down specifics, but seeing as max 22 players on the pitch...)
    Ark: Survival Evolved - 70 (official, unofficial more)
    Total War: Warhammer - 2
    The Escapists 2 - 4
    XCOM 2 - 4? (again, hard to find specifics)
    Mordheim - 2
    Rust - 50 (default, can set it as high as you want)

    I'm bored, but average number of players from 18 of the top selling multiplayer games on steam is 23. 

    Lets add in some other games that we know are popular, just not on steam. 

    DotA2 - 10
    LoL - 12 (mostly 10)
    Overwatch - 12
    Battlefield 1 - 64
    Destiny - 16
    The Division - 24

    Average stays the same. 

    I could keep going, but what's the point? We both know the results won't change much. It might shrink a bit once you've included every single possible multiplayer online game, or might grow a bit if you weighted the player caps against the popularity of the game. 


    So, if the average multiplayer online game can only support 23 players within the same virtual environment, can you explain to me how Destiny, which can only support 16, is massively multiplayer? Last time I looked, 16 is less than 23. 



    What am I getting wrong here? Do you comprehend English differently to me? Do you have a different definition of multiplayer? Is your understanding of maths different? Do we have a different understanding of what it means to be in the same virtual environment? Is it a tech problem, not understanding how virtual environment relates to zones / instances / layers / servers / shards?


    I get it when people lack english comprehension
    I get when people lack understanding of the technology
    I get when people mis-label due to feature comparison
    I get when people mis-label for marketing purposes
    I get when people mis-label for trolling fun

    You don't seem to fall into any of those, which is unique!
    BananaSoupPhryConstantineMerusCecropiaIselinNildenGdemami
  • Is Destiny 2 an MMO:Poll

    The game can be played online concurrently by a massive number of players, so it is an MMO by definition.  Nothing about an MMO requires that the massive number of players all be playing in such a way that they are constantly accessible to each other.

    Your use of the word "concurrently" is where your misunderstanding of what an MMO is stems from. 

    Concurrent - at the same time / simultaneously. 

    That has nothing to do with multiplayer. Being a multiplayer game means the people playing within the same virtual environment. So, Call of Duty, Battlefield, PUBG etc all have 1000s or millions playing concurrently, but the multiplayer part of it is capped at a low number. The same is true for Destiny and Destiny 2 - they may support 1000s concurrently playing the game, but when it comes to the multiplayer bit, the number is capped low. 

    So, given that "massively" is an adverb and is applied to the word "multiplayer", to be an MMO you have to support a massive amount of people within the same virtual environment. WoW, FFXIV, ESO, LotRO etc all support 1000s within the same virtual environment, Destiny does not. 
    It has everything to do with multiplayer. That is what multiplayer means, multiple concurrent players, with the exception of hot seat games where it is consecutive.

    It doesn't matter if the number is capped low, so long as it is more than one.

    Nothing about the definition requires that thousands of players exist in the same environment during play. It simply requires that a massive number of people can play the game concurrently. You are simply trying to make historical examples of MMORPGs defining of MMOs in general, which they are not. The genre has expanded beyond them.

    The reality is that the vast majority of actual play in MMORPGs does not take place in areas of high player concentration in any case. Rather, most of the play takes place removed from that, either solo or in comparatively small groups of people when contrasted with the overall population... groups often similar in size to those in Destiny and other similar titles. In many MMORPGs these areas become instanced upon group entry, making them even more similar.

    As such, the difference is more a matter of form than function, that form being what surrounds the play. Those MMOs that fit the traditional form of MMORPGs are described as such. MMOs that don't are not, being typically described by whatever sub-genre they are in.

    Essentially, MMO is a broad category of games, of which MMORPG is but one type. Other types of games are also included within, and this variety will continue to expand over time as multiplayer games of different genres are released.

    MMO is ONLY about the number of people that can exist within the same virtual environment. Just look at the words:
    • Multiplayer - the game allows 2 or more people to interact within the same game world
    • Online - the gamers connect to one another via the internet
    • Massively - adverb, applies to the world multiplayer, meaning the multiplayer aspect is considered significantly bigger than standard multiplayer
    It is fairly basic English comprehension. It also fits with the history of MMOs. It also fits with the definitions given by some of the pioneers of MMOs. It even fits with what modern developers are telling us: Bungie does not call Destiny or Destiny 2 an MMO, in fact they outright deny it because they know it isn't!


    But, lets look at where you are falling down. For some bizarre reason, you seem to believe that playing the game at the same time as someone else counts as being multiplayer. Why? That has never been the definition of multiplayer!

    Multiplayer has always meant the ability to play at the same time AND interact with them. If we cannot interact, it is not multiplayer. I can go to https://www.solitr.com/ and play a game of solitaire there, and you could do so at the same time. That would mean we are playing the game concurrently but, without the ability to interact with each other, we are not playing a multiplayer game. 

    The same is true of Destiny. There is a cap of 16 people in any given instance (or, so I'm told). If you want to interact with any of the other 1000s of people playing the game at the same time as you (concurrent users), you have to leave the game world (instance) and return to a lobby via loading screens, then connect with them and enter their instance. You are never sharing the same game world with more than 16 players at any given moment. If you want to play with a friend who is not in your current instance, there is no possible way for the two of you to play together (multiplayer) without one or both of you leaving the gameworld and loading into a new version of it. If you have 50 friends playing the game, there is no possible way for all 50 of you to meet up in game. So, with a cap of 16 players, the game cannot be defined as massively multiplayer....just normal multiplayer. 

    And again, there is nothing wrong with that! Destiny as a game is fine. It has a lot of features within it that are similar to standard MMORPG features - quests, leveling, loot, dungeons, raids - so the game will appeal to a lot of MMORPG fans. But, do not confuse it for an MMO, because it isn't. If you do consider it an MMO, then absolutely every single game that has ever had online multiplayer is also an MMO. If you consider that statement to be true, there is no helping you. 




    ExcessionCecropiaForgrimmTuor7PhryVynt
  • (updated!) Authorities looking at regulating RNG as gambling

    SEANMCAD said:
    laserit said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    laserit said:
    SEANMCAD said:


    Not sure what your issue is.

    And yes, a "kid" should also have supervision buying video games. Are you disputing that?
    no I am not, its just not really a very interesting relevant point to the conversation of gambling.

    Ok, I got your 'narrative' kids should not buy video games...and if you dont mind lets get back to the meat of the conversation
    Reading comprehension Sean

    "a "kid" should also have supervision buying video games"

    Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469790/authorities-looking-at-regulating-rng-as-gambling/p7#SiZV52zB4fm9hZSW.99
    yes I know that.

    His point is not really relevant to the conversation of GAMBLING specifically and its causing a distraction. 

    Ok kids should not buy video games, thanks for that information I will write that down.

    Now...can we talk about gambling specifically?
    Well my thoughts are that if loot boxes are financially successful why should we confine them to the video game industry.

    Why not expand them into places like the Super Market and the food you eat.

    $10 gets you a chance at a pound of ground Beef, chicken thighs or Filet Mignon and we dont have to give you the odds. 
    and why not!

    that spurs the question.

    Look if one can not seriously give a reason other than 'cuz...' then I still question it.

    1. why are you all pretending the subject is 'think about the childern!' give me a break I am not buying that bullshit argument. its 'about' YOUR experience in the game
    2. we have to be able to make a coherent conclusion with a specific reason why specifically gambling specifically is of a concern and other items are not. NOT say 'well no kids should buy anything' 

    and for the love of fuck please stop making it about 'the kids' to push a moral agenda on others...its bullshit
    1. Gambling is harmful to individuals and society in general. Individual people may be able to handle it fine, but as an overall average it is harmful. There have been countless studies over the years that have shown this to be true. That doesn't mean gambling can't be fun, it can often be very fun, but it is harmful. If you doubt this, take 10 minutes to do some Googling. It is most harmful when it is done on a regular basis as it actually changes your brain chemistry. 

    2. Children need protection. Again, this is pretty much a universal given - children lack both the physical stature, the mental skills and the experience to make decisions and protect themselves. However, making the wrong decisions is a very important way of learning about life, which is why we only protect children against certain things. We protect them from alcohol, certain drugs, driving heavy machinery, making poor voting decisions, sexual activity and certain types of gambling. 

    3. Gambling on things that don't provide a monetary reward is generally not covered by gambling regulations. So, countless studies have established that gambling is harmful, countless studies have established that children need protection against harmful things, but due to a loophole the law cannot protect children against this type of gambling. 

    4. The long term fear is that this type of unregulated gambling will prime children to enjoy gambling, so that when they do become adults and can participate in "proper" gambling they will end up causing a lot of pain for themselves and everyone around them. Lootboxes are the equivalent of giving nicotine patches to children - they might not start smoking later on, but they will be more likely to. 

    5. I expect you are right in that many people are using "the kids" as a convenient excuse to remove a feature they don't like. That doesn't mean "the kids" argument is invalid. I will fully admit that I want microtransactions in general, and paid-for lootboxes specifically, removed from gaming for personal reasons. However, personal preference means fuck all so affecting change on an entertainment platform is extremely difficult. So, whilst protecting "the kids" might be disingenuous, it is still a valid reason and it is a reason that will actually be taken seriously by those in a position to affect change (lawmakers). 

    6. The hope is that if MT lootboxes can become governed by the same gambling laws as normal gambling, minors will be unable to purchase games that include it. This will cut off a revenue stream for publishers as minors will no longer be able to buy the game nor spend money on lootboxes. This loss in revenue will force developers to remove this type of feature from future games. The most likely outcome is simply providing the items in lootboxes for set prices, but there is always the risk that developers might come up with something worse than lootboxes. 

    7. Personal responsibility is, of course, still the most important lesson we can teach our children (and ourselves). The cut-off point for what we protect against and what we allow is entirely arbitrary and only has a loose connection to facts/science/ethics and everyone's opinion will be different. For example, virtually every scientific study has shown that alcohol is more harmful than marajuana, yet alcohol is legal and marajuana illegal nearly everywhere on the planet. When it comes to protecting children, it just depends on your opinion on the nanny state. 
    CogohithunderCGdemamiJacobinTuor7