Originally posted by lizardbones Pushing people out of their comfort zones on the off chance that they might like OW PvP doesn't mean OW PvP has intrinsic value. Having intrinsic value would imply that the opinions players have of it is irrelevant. Your answer only suggests that some people who say they don't like OW PvP might like it. So you responded to my question, but didn't answer it. Why do you believe that OW PvP has intrinsic value? This shouldn't require people to like it. If it has intrinsic value, people could out right hate it and it would still have intrinsic value. If it helps, think of it like this. When you eat food, food has both intrinsic value and entertainment value. The intrinsic value is in the nutrients provided by the food. Some foods have more or less intrinsic value because of the nutrients they provide. Foods also have entertainment value. People like or dislike foods based on their taste, texture, color and even what they know about the food's intrinsic value, but their like or dislike of the food doesn't change the food's intrinsic value. Someone could hate broccoli, but broccoli will provide the exact same nutrients whether someone likes it or not.
It may not be an answer you like, but it's still an answer, and a legitimate one. Properly implemented and meaningful pvp adds something to a game that nothing else can. I have played too many games to believe that statement to be anything but true. Actual results vary largely because implementation and how they are received vary, but the basic concept of pvp is still a sound one that needs to be considered in a sandbox. That doesn't mean that blindly allowing it or putting in a shoddy implementation is a good idea, but it does mean that the concept has merit, and deserves to be considered in some form.
If it adds "something", what is that "something"? We're not talking about deep secrets of the universe here, we're talking about a man made thing, using man made concepts that have been around for about twenty years. If OW PvP adds some sort of intrinsic value, it should be fairly easy to name, or at least describe.
If you can't name it or even describe it, then it probably doesn't exist as an intrinsic value of OW PvP, but rather it exists as something that satisfied your preferences.
You seem to be setting up some kind of word landmine so I'll try to traverse it carefully. I'm not sure if you consider it to be "intrinsic value" but ow pvp adds more community involvement than restricting ow pvp does. It makes for more personal story lines and histories between players and guilds than a game without it. There's value in a PLAYER capturing and punishing another player than an NPC doing it. People seem to enjoy organic story lines, rather than rushing through walls of dialogue just to accept a quest.
The funny thing is it seems the most passionate pve players seem to be so passionate about it because of the competition between other players. Ever heard the term "Server first" for completing a raid?
Regarding the first paragraph, you either omitting or dismissing the possibility of a form of meaningful interaction replacing the open world PVP. A Tale in the Desert is a perfect example of that. The collaborative and cooperative gameplay offers both the community involvement and the personal stories that you feel would be absent if players couldn't kill each other in the open world. Additionally, the "organic story lines" thing is going to be a hard sell unless you have data to back that because, in the absence of NPC driven story, an organic story line is told through player choices, and historically, most MMORPG players have rejected any system where they have to make a meaningful choice. The systems that did offer that, have long since been removed.
Your closing paragraph is either the lead in to a backpedal or you are suggesting that those arguing that against OW PVP are also saying players are against competition. I do not believe anyone has tried to make that claim.
Pointing to a non-pvp game that has community involvement doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying you can't have community involvement without pvp. I'm saying it adds more community involvement than a game without it.
Sure you can have collaboration and cooperation in a pve game, but it's probably going to take more resources from the developer to do so. A game with ow pvp naturally introduces new heroes/enemies and also introduces new meta. Against even the best AI, people are eventually going to figure it out and come up with the best way to tackle it.
Also, you're missing out on the flip side of collaboration and cooperation. You're missing out on the villains. I didn't play ATitD but I doubt you could have the same level of backstabbing or espionage as you could in a game like Darkfall.
You seem to be setting up some kind of word landmine so I'll try to traverse it carefully. I'm not sure if you consider it to be "intrinsic value" but ow pvp adds more community involvement than restricting ow pvp does. It makes for more personal story lines and histories between players and guilds than a game without it. There's value in a PLAYER capturing and punishing another player than an NPC doing it. People seem to enjoy organic story lines, rather than rushing through walls of dialogue just to accept a quest.
Where do you get that?
Lots of big video game sellers are canned, and professional created story lines. It seems people are voting for their wallet for "non-organic" story lines.
unfortunatelly i have to agree with nariusseldon on this one. most people really seems to want just another "you are the hero of this world!" premade story, which is something i dont get in mmorpg, but they really seems to want it. thats why we have a lot more themepark mmorpg then sandbox ones, pvp ones or not.
And yet the vast majority of people who play these games don't even skim the story. Just because people are choosing games that have pre-packaged boring story lines doesn't mean they prefer pre-packaged story lines to organic ones. That's just a logical fallacy.
well sorry, but it is still a lot more proof than "people seem to enjoy organic story lines"
what proof do you have of that statement?
Well first of all you mean evidence, not proof.
Second, my evidence is how vocal people are about how much they dislike the stories in the quests in the very games you're using as evidence for people liking those stories. It's pretty basic stuff that most people breeze through the text just to get to the screen that says "Accept" on it. If you want to argue that point, well then I guess gg? Because as far as I know nobody has done an academic study on how much people care about written story quests in mmo's.
The other piece of evidence is a different side of the same coin. In my experience people get EMOTIONALLY INVESTED in their own personal story lines and histories with other players. In Darkfall there's an entire political aspect of the game that takes place almost completely on the forums and is based on their in-game experiences. Clans backstabbing other clans. Clans being hired by their old nemesis clan to help defend against a common enemy.
Can you point me towards a community that has such an interest in why exactly I have to go kill 10 boars to retrieve their tusks or something?
sorry but neither is evidence - people who are vocal about anything in mmorpgs are just really small (i think according to some research it was like 5% or somethign like that, not really sure but some really small number)
people who play darkfall (or all sandbox mmorpgs together) are just small part of mmorpg player base.
It's not really a sandbox if there isn't owpvp...sandbox you should have total control. The more restraints you have on the player, the less of a sandbox it is.
What a loaded statement. How can one have total control without restrictions?
I don't think OW PVP has anything to do with a sandbox being successful. Does it improve retention? Maybe, but the same could be said for any well designed tool that a game could have.
Seems like panic is starting to creep in with these continuous whine threads about pvp.
Relax pve people you have tons of games already released that are designed exactly the way you want them.
No, some of us do NOT have a MMORPG made "exactly the way you want them".
We did, but the two of three we did have are now history (due to changes [DAoC] and/or closure [SWG] ). Not all areas in DAoC were PvP and a Player could stay unflagged for PvP in SWG. DAoC wasn't sandbox per se, but I sem to recall it playing more like a sandbox than most themeparks do now (original DAoC pre-TOA, not the improved DAoC without arrows).
One remains afaik.... Wurm Online, Freedom Isles Servers. There I can have all the sandbox goodness I could possibly digest and enjoy, without PvP.... until I remind myself of how it is and has been managed over the years, how many times Rolf has made split second decisions that benefited almost no one, or just the PvP Players on Wild and now Epic. Or how a few years back he made the Old Home servers "Raid"able PvP wise without warning (Home servers back then were non PvP)... I could go on for pages but suffice it to say I finely wisened up and quit in June. I miss Wurm but I do not miss Rolf's antics.
So like I said, some of us don't have the MMORPG we want, and I doubt we ever will after reading the posts of Devs and Staffers on this website.
But back to Topic, here is to you getting that OW PvP you want.... some of us might as well be happy. Cheers. **raises his Mug in Salute and Toast**
Seems like panic is starting to creep in with these continuous whine threads about pvp.
Relax pve people you have tons of games already released that are designed exactly the way you want them.
No, some of us do NOT have a MMORPG made "exactly the way you want them".
We did, but the two of three we did have are now history (due to changes [DAoC] and/or closure [SWG] ).
One remains afaik.... Wurm Online, Freedom Isles Servers. There I can have all the sandbox goodness I could possibly digest and enjoy.... until I remind myself of how it is and has been managed over the years, how many times Rolf has made split second decisions that benefited almost no one, or just PvP Players on Wild and now Epic. I could go on but suffice it to say I finely wisened up and quit in June.
So like I said, some of us don't have the MMORPG we want, and I doubt we ever will after reading the posts of Devs and Staffers on this website.
But back to Topic, here is to you getting that OW PvP you want.... some of us might as well be happy. Cheers. **raises his Mug in Salute and Toast**
i think saxx0n just shot himself in the leg, because if this is "whine thread about pvp", it is actually whine thread about pvp from a pvp fan, not from "pve people"
Another guy said politics and religion. Really without war?
lol really?
So, let me get this straight, every year, currently, every country that has "politics" has some sort of violent war.
Some do sure. But "every country that has politics also has war". Not "had, I'll cut you off before that one gets offered.
But e-v-e-r-y country today has politics that lead to internal fighting AND violent war?
Or are you saying Canada has absolutely no politics? How about Austraiia? I'm sure there are others.
No that would be silly. Why do these people have the right to "politic" in peace?
Yeah.. and we have all those demonstrations, revolutions, civil wars, wars about resources, wars about territory, wars about opinion, wars about human rights, wars about whatever.
Another guy said politics and religion. Really without war?
lol really?
So, let me get this straight, every year, currently, every country that has "politics" has some sort of violent war.
Some do sure. But "every country that has politics also has war". Not "had, I'll cut you off before that one gets offered.
But e-v-e-r-y country today has politics that lead to internal fighting AND violent war?
Or are you saying Canada has absolutely no politics? How about Austraiia? I'm sure there are others.
No that would be silly. Why do these people have the right to "politic" in peace?
Yeah.. and we have all those demonstrations, revolutions, civil wars, wars about resources, wars about territory, wars about opinion, wars about human rights, wars about whatever.
Can i opt in in your world? Sounds so peacefully.
Thank you for making my argument. The idea of politics and religion without war is silly.
What a sandbox needs to be a successful sandbox has nothing to do with PvP, OW or not. You can have a PvE sandbox MMO and it could do just as well as an OW PvP sandbox MMO.
Sandbox MMO's are sought after for key elements in gameplay:
1) A world that can be altered either directly by players ( player constructed housing and cities ), indirectly ( quests/missions that permanently affect the environment ) or both.
2) Player driven economy ( item degradation, resource gathering and in depth crafting ).
3) A truly persistent world with AI that actually adapts to player choices ( mobs with social aspects and desires such as creatures that build enemy / friendly villages or cities with which to trade or fight nearby player territories ).
4) Unique quests/missions that are not repeatable with respectable rewards based on difficulty. This would allow people to either play lone wolf or band together.
5) Meaningful PvP that involves territorial / resource control. This doesn't require open world or full looting PvP. Basically the drive for control of something that provides an in-game advantage is all that is needed. Thus allowing players who don't feel the need to have said territories or resources can do whatever they desire to include being mercenaries for hire yet allow them to roam freely unharmed as long as they are in a neutral state.
6) And last but not least, no classes, just skills.
However, as this and many MMO sites have dictated. What everyone feels a sandbox MMO should be is always going to be different. This is what I feel a sandbox MMO needs if it wants to be successful.
Excellent post. I personally feel that covers the basic concept of what a sandbox is and states it very clearly.
Originally posted by lizardbones Pushing people out of their comfort zones on the off chance that they might like OW PvP doesn't mean OW PvP has intrinsic value. Having intrinsic value would imply that the opinions players have of it is irrelevant. Your answer only suggests that some people who say they don't like OW PvP might like it. So you responded to my question, but didn't answer it. Why do you believe that OW PvP has intrinsic value? This shouldn't require people to like it. If it has intrinsic value, people could out right hate it and it would still have intrinsic value. If it helps, think of it like this. When you eat food, food has both intrinsic value and entertainment value. The intrinsic value is in the nutrients provided by the food. Some foods have more or less intrinsic value because of the nutrients they provide. Foods also have entertainment value. People like or dislike foods based on their taste, texture, color and even what they know about the food's intrinsic value, but their like or dislike of the food doesn't change the food's intrinsic value. Someone could hate broccoli, but broccoli will provide the exact same nutrients whether someone likes it or not.
It may not be an answer you like, but it's still an answer, and a legitimate one. Properly implemented and meaningful pvp adds something to a game that nothing else can. I have played too many games to believe that statement to be anything but true. Actual results vary largely because implementation and how they are received vary, but the basic concept of pvp is still a sound one that needs to be considered in a sandbox. That doesn't mean that blindly allowing it or putting in a shoddy implementation is a good idea, but it does mean that the concept has merit, and deserves to be considered in some form.
If it adds "something", what is that "something"? We're not talking about deep secrets of the universe here, we're talking about a man made thing, using man made concepts that have been around for about twenty years. If OW PvP adds some sort of intrinsic value, it should be fairly easy to name, or at least describe.
If you can't name it or even describe it, then it probably doesn't exist as an intrinsic value of OW PvP, but rather it exists as something that satisfied your preferences.
You seem to be setting up some kind of word landmine so I'll try to traverse it carefully. I'm not sure if you consider it to be "intrinsic value" but ow pvp adds more community involvement than restricting ow pvp does. It makes for more personal story lines and histories between players and guilds than a game without it. There's value in a PLAYER capturing and punishing another player than an NPC doing it. People seem to enjoy organic story lines, rather than rushing through walls of dialogue just to accept a quest.
The funny thing is it seems the most passionate pve players seem to be so passionate about it because of the competition between other players. Ever heard the term "Server first" for completing a raid?
Regarding the first paragraph, you either omitting or dismissing the possibility of a form of meaningful interaction replacing the open world PVP. A Tale in the Desert is a perfect example of that. The collaborative and cooperative gameplay offers both the community involvement and the personal stories that you feel would be absent if players couldn't kill each other in the open world. Additionally, the "organic story lines" thing is going to be a hard sell unless you have data to back that because, in the absence of NPC driven story, an organic story line is told through player choices, and historically, most MMORPG players have rejected any system where they have to make a meaningful choice. The systems that did offer that, have long since been removed.
Your closing paragraph is either the lead in to a backpedal or you are suggesting that those arguing that against OW PVP are also saying players are against competition. I do not believe anyone has tried to make that claim.
Pointing to a non-pvp game that has community involvement doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying you can't have community involvement without pvp. I'm saying it adds more community involvement than a game without it.
Correct. As I said, you are dismissing the fact that there is another option - an alternative to OW PVP.
Sure you can have collaboration and cooperation in a pve game, but it's probably going to take more resources from the developer to do so. A game with ow pvp naturally introduces new heroes/enemies and also introduces new meta. Against even the best AI, people are eventually going to figure it out and come up with the best way to tackle it.
But that's the fascinating thing. You, by your many posts in this thread alone, have made it clear that you, personally, have to be able to kill people in order to resolve differences otherwise it's not 'real' to you. When presented with an alternative to the might-makes-right approach - lawmaking and cooperative gameplay - you reject it as not even in the equation. Your view as you have presented it is that new objectives and new obstacles need to be villains, which is not necessarily true. You can have equally meaningful objectives and obstacles in a game world that is about collaborative growth. Although it has been presented many times in this thread, you do not seem to want to accept that player conflicts and their associated resolutions can be handled without murder, conquest or subjugation.
Also, you're missing out on the flip side of collaboration and cooperation. You're missing out on the villains. I didn't play ATitD but I doubt you could have the same level of backstabbing or espionage as you could in a game like Darkfall.
There are plenty of heroes and villains on Capitol Hill, in local government and in your own neighborhood community organizations, and they somehow manage to get through most days without murdering and teabagging each other. ME SMASH isn't the only way to solve a problem, and it certainly isn't the only way to make an engaging game.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Sandbox without world pvp, pk with consequences, guild wars over world resources, politics, territories, without betrayals, freedom to be a high reputation player among the guild-community or an outlaw hated by other players, etc. Would be 100000 times worse and meaningless than themeparks.
You seem to be setting up some kind of word landmine so I'll try to traverse it carefully. I'm not sure if you consider it to be "intrinsic value" but ow pvp adds more community involvement than restricting ow pvp does. It makes for more personal story lines and histories between players and guilds than a game without it. There's value in a PLAYER capturing and punishing another player than an NPC doing it. People seem to enjoy organic story lines, rather than rushing through walls of dialogue just to accept a quest.
Where do you get that?
Lots of big video game sellers are canned, and professional created story lines. It seems people are voting for their wallet for "non-organic" story lines.
unfortunatelly i have to agree with nariusseldon on this one. most people really seems to want just another "you are the hero of this world!" premade story, which is something i dont get in mmorpg, but they really seems to want it. thats why we have a lot more themepark mmorpg then sandbox ones, pvp ones or not.
And yet the vast majority of people who play these games don't even skim the story. Just because people are choosing games that have pre-packaged boring story lines doesn't mean they prefer pre-packaged story lines to organic ones. That's just a logical fallacy.
well sorry, but it is still a lot more proof than "people seem to enjoy organic story lines"
what proof do you have of that statement?
Well first of all you mean evidence, not proof.
Second, my evidence is how vocal people are about how much they dislike the stories in the quests in the very games you're using as evidence for people liking those stories. It's pretty basic stuff that most people breeze through the text just to get to the screen that says "Accept" on it. If you want to argue that point, well then I guess gg? Because as far as I know nobody has done an academic study on how much people care about written story quests in mmo's.
The other piece of evidence is a different side of the same coin. In my experience people get EMOTIONALLY INVESTED in their own personal story lines and histories with other players. In Darkfall there's an entire political aspect of the game that takes place almost completely on the forums and is based on their in-game experiences. Clans backstabbing other clans. Clans being hired by their old nemesis clan to help defend against a common enemy.
Can you point me towards a community that has such an interest in why exactly I have to go kill 10 boars to retrieve their tusks or something?
sorry but neither is evidence - people who are vocal about anything in mmorpgs are just really small (i think according to some research it was like 5% or somethign like that, not really sure but some really small number)
people who play darkfall (or all sandbox mmorpgs together) are just small part of mmorpg player base.
any other evidence?
So I can point towards people who are enthusiastic about the player made stories in a game. Can you point me towards a community that is as active in and enthralled by the developer-written story in a game?
Originally posted by Prenho Sandbox without world pvp, pk with consequences, guild wars over world resources, politics, territories, without betrayals, freedom to be a high reputation player among the guild-community or an outlaw hated by other players, etc. Would be 100000 times worse and meaningless than themeparks.
Your post summarized very well my thesis in the thread. Gratz.
Originally posted by lizardbones Pushing people out of their comfort zones on the off chance that they might like OW PvP doesn't mean OW PvP has intrinsic value. Having intrinsic value would imply that the opinions players have of it is irrelevant. Your answer only suggests that some people who say they don't like OW PvP might like it. So you responded to my question, but didn't answer it. Why do you believe that OW PvP has intrinsic value? This shouldn't require people to like it. If it has intrinsic value, people could out right hate it and it would still have intrinsic value. If it helps, think of it like this. When you eat food, food has both intrinsic value and entertainment value. The intrinsic value is in the nutrients provided by the food. Some foods have more or less intrinsic value because of the nutrients they provide. Foods also have entertainment value. People like or dislike foods based on their taste, texture, color and even what they know about the food's intrinsic value, but their like or dislike of the food doesn't change the food's intrinsic value. Someone could hate broccoli, but broccoli will provide the exact same nutrients whether someone likes it or not.
It may not be an answer you like, but it's still an answer, and a legitimate one. Properly implemented and meaningful pvp adds something to a game that nothing else can. I have played too many games to believe that statement to be anything but true. Actual results vary largely because implementation and how they are received vary, but the basic concept of pvp is still a sound one that needs to be considered in a sandbox. That doesn't mean that blindly allowing it or putting in a shoddy implementation is a good idea, but it does mean that the concept has merit, and deserves to be considered in some form.
If it adds "something", what is that "something"? We're not talking about deep secrets of the universe here, we're talking about a man made thing, using man made concepts that have been around for about twenty years. If OW PvP adds some sort of intrinsic value, it should be fairly easy to name, or at least describe.
If you can't name it or even describe it, then it probably doesn't exist as an intrinsic value of OW PvP, but rather it exists as something that satisfied your preferences.
You seem to be setting up some kind of word landmine so I'll try to traverse it carefully. I'm not sure if you consider it to be "intrinsic value" but ow pvp adds more community involvement than restricting ow pvp does. It makes for more personal story lines and histories between players and guilds than a game without it. There's value in a PLAYER capturing and punishing another player than an NPC doing it. People seem to enjoy organic story lines, rather than rushing through walls of dialogue just to accept a quest.
The funny thing is it seems the most passionate pve players seem to be so passionate about it because of the competition between other players. Ever heard the term "Server first" for completing a raid?
Regarding the first paragraph, you either omitting or dismissing the possibility of a form of meaningful interaction replacing the open world PVP. A Tale in the Desert is a perfect example of that. The collaborative and cooperative gameplay offers both the community involvement and the personal stories that you feel would be absent if players couldn't kill each other in the open world. Additionally, the "organic story lines" thing is going to be a hard sell unless you have data to back that because, in the absence of NPC driven story, an organic story line is told through player choices, and historically, most MMORPG players have rejected any system where they have to make a meaningful choice. The systems that did offer that, have long since been removed.
Your closing paragraph is either the lead in to a backpedal or you are suggesting that those arguing that against OW PVP are also saying players are against competition. I do not believe anyone has tried to make that claim.
Pointing to a non-pvp game that has community involvement doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying you can't have community involvement without pvp. I'm saying it adds more community involvement than a game without it.
Correct. As I said, you are dismissing the fact that there is another option - an alternative to OW PVP.
"Dismissing" how? I'm merely saying that an ow pvp game is more community involvement than one of similar quality without ow pvp. I'm not sure how that dismisses anything.
Sure you can have collaboration and cooperation in a pve game, but it's probably going to take more resources from the developer to do so. A game with ow pvp naturally introduces new heroes/enemies and also introduces new meta. Against even the best AI, people are eventually going to figure it out and come up with the best way to tackle it.
But that's the fascinating thing. You, by your many posts in this thread alone, have made it clear that you, personally, have to be able to kill people in order to resolve differences otherwise it's not 'real' to you. When presented with an alternative to the might-makes-right approach - lawmaking and cooperative gameplay - you reject it as not even in the equation. Your view as you have presented it is that new objectives and new obstacles need to be villains, which is not necessarily true. You can have equally meaningful objectives and obstacles in a game world that is about collaborative growth. Although it has been presented many times in this thread, you do not seem to want to accept that player conflicts and their associated resolutions can be handled without murder, conquest or subjugation.
Nobody has present any kind of non-pvp player driven content that I've heard. And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't assume things about my playstyle. And how exactly does lawmaking work without the threat of force? The point isn't to beat people into a submission for not agreeing with your in-game goals. But the most potent way to drive story lines, politics, etc is through conflict, and people collaborating and cooperating with each other to wipe out rivals, or defend themselves from outside threats.
You say a game with new objectives and obstacles has been presented "many times" in this thread. May I ask where? I haven't seen any specific ideas or examples.
If it's created by the developers, that's a lot of time and money wasted that could be going into enhancing the core features of the game. By having OW PvP the players create the content themselves, which is cheaper than a developer having to always be working on a new expansion with more dungeons, quests, etc.
You've said many times that ideas have been offered, and I'm curious as to what they are.
Also, you're missing out on the flip side of collaboration and cooperation. You're missing out on the villains. I didn't play ATitD but I doubt you could have the same level of backstabbing or espionage as you could in a game like Darkfall.
There are plenty of heroes and villains on Capitol Hill, in local government and in your own neighborhood community organizations, and they somehow manage to get through most days without murdering and teabagging each other. ME SMASH isn't the only way to solve a problem, and it certainly isn't the only way to make an engaging game.
In the real world we have a complicated and fully functional government. If you could implement a similar system in a game, then I'll play it. But until then, ow pvp is by far the most effective way to promote player-driven content. If you have a better specific example, I'm all ears.
*EDIT* So I realized that your whole point is kind of..... pointless. Even if there were other features besides OW PvP that promote player-drive content, the fact remains that OW PvP promotes MORE player-driven content than no OW PvP. For instance, you allude to the fact that our lawmakers have plenty of "content" and are quite busy doing things other than punching each other in the face. Suppose you made a game like that. Yes there would be player driven content, for sure. But wouldn't there be significantly more if you ALSO had OW PvP? How busy would our politicians be if war and violence didn't exist?
Pointing to a non-pvp game that has community involvement doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying you can't have community involvement without pvp. I'm saying it adds more community involvement than a game without it.
Correct. As I said, you are dismissing the fact that there is another option - an alternative to OW PVP.
"Dismissing" how? I'm merely saying that an ow pvp game is more community involvement than one of similar quality without ow pvp. I'm not sure how that dismisses anything.
You are basing that on the absence of open world PVP without some other system to create community involvement in its place. We have already seen in other games that not only do other systems work, but they promote high community involvement. Additionally, we've seen that they can result in very high retention rates, as shown by the fact that most players of ATITD have been playing since the First or Second Telling.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Pointing to a non-pvp game that has community involvement doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying you can't have community involvement without pvp. I'm saying it adds more community involvement than a game without it.
Correct. As I said, you are dismissing the fact that there is another option - an alternative to OW PVP.
"Dismissing" how? I'm merely saying that an ow pvp game is more community involvement than one of similar quality without ow pvp. I'm not sure how that dismisses anything.
You are basing that on the absence of open world PVP without some other system to create community involvement in its place. We have already seen in other games that not only do other systems work, but they promote high community involvement. Additionally, we've seen that they can result in very high retention rates, as shown by the fact that most players of ATITD have been playing since the First or Second Telling.
What system are you talking about? I've asked a few times now. I can't think of a system that promotes player involvement better than ow pvp and ALSO is mutually exclusive to ow pvp.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
It is very easy to understand the meaningfullness of pvp in fantasy games when you are peasfully collecting som herbs and a horde of pvp'ers come and kill you over and over, must feel very meaningfull for them to se Another player leav the game.
Congratulations. You've just joined the ranks of non-pvp players that have arrogantly asserted their claim while not understanding the ow pvp's claim. For as much as you guys claim about pvp'ers being unreasonable, you guys sure can be unreasonable.
The possibility of losing your things, makes keeping those things more interesting to me. It makes for a deeper game if there's risk/reward.
I'm starting to see a pattern here... Anyone who doesn't agree with you is "arrogant."
NO. I mainly respond to people being arrogant. That's WHY I'm responding. I wouldn't respond to somebody simply saying "I prefer my games to not have ow pvp." I'm responding to the people who say things like "people only want ow pvp because they're psychopaths."
Weird because I never said anything slightly arrogant and yet you called me arrogant.
"Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
That's not arrogant? It's arrogant because you're asserting that the depth that pvp adds is just around "killing pve players that want nothing to do with pvp." That doesn't even scratch the surface of why we prefer ow pvp games. You're arrogantly boiling down the subject to one inaccurate sarcastic statement that ALSO has the added benefit of insulting people who pvp.
You clearly have no clue what the term arrogant means. I was literally quoting your words! Since when was quoting considered arrogant? And I never insulted PvPers. Why you insist on seeing attacks on you when there are literally none is beyond me.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
It is very easy to understand the meaningfullness of pvp in fantasy games when you are peasfully collecting som herbs and a horde of pvp'ers come and kill you over and over, must feel very meaningfull for them to se Another player leav the game.
Congratulations. You've just joined the ranks of non-pvp players that have arrogantly asserted their claim while not understanding the ow pvp's claim. For as much as you guys claim about pvp'ers being unreasonable, you guys sure can be unreasonable.
The possibility of losing your things, makes keeping those things more interesting to me. It makes for a deeper game if there's risk/reward.
I'm starting to see a pattern here... Anyone who doesn't agree with you is "arrogant."
NO. I mainly respond to people being arrogant. That's WHY I'm responding. I wouldn't respond to somebody simply saying "I prefer my games to not have ow pvp." I'm responding to the people who say things like "people only want ow pvp because they're psychopaths."
Weird because I never said anything slightly arrogant and yet you called me arrogant.
"Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
That's not arrogant? It's arrogant because you're asserting that the depth that pvp adds is just around "killing pve players that want nothing to do with pvp." That doesn't even scratch the surface of why we prefer ow pvp games. You're arrogantly boiling down the subject to one inaccurate sarcastic statement that ALSO has the added benefit of insulting people who pvp.
You clearly have no clue what the term arrogant means. I was literally quoting your words! Since when was quoting considered arrogant? And I never insulted PvPers. Why you insist on seeing attacks on you when there are literally none is beyond me.
You were quoting my words in a sarcastic way. And I've already explained in detail why it was arrogant. Do you care to refute it in any kind of objective way? Or are you just going to drag this out for no reason?
It's insulting to suggest that the only thing about ow pvp games is people "going around killing pve players that want nothing to do with pvp" That's what you said, and it's arrogant and insulting. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that? Really?
Originally posted by HolophonistI stopped here because this seems to be where you're twisting the argument into something weird where you just are demanding an answer to some nebulous question about intrinsic value. The discussion was about why turning off pvp isn't a stylistic choice like a game being fantasy or sci-fi or whatever else. Basically if we put up with unrealistic aspects of a game like monsters and magic, why do I care about an unrealistic aspect like turning off pvp?
I've answered that thoroughly. Because it's not a style. You suspend disbelief for things like fireballs and building houses in an instant once you have the resources because of things like style and and technical limitations. The fundamental difference is that turning off pvp is a solution to the problem of people griefing each other. If pvp was on and nobody ever fought each other, there would be no reason to turn it off. But with 0 restrictions people will grief each other and ultimately kill the game. Turning off pvp, in my opinion, was a lazy solution to that problem. You could solve the same problem with a more natural and less drastic solution. Now, if you have some question about whether or not ow pvp has an intrinsic value, you're going to have to elaborate because it doesn't. No game feature has intrinsic value as far as I can tell. That doesn't really mean anything.
It's relevant to the thread's central idea there in the title.
If OW PvP doesn't have some intrinsic value, then it doesn't in general increase player retention. It would increase player retention for players who like it, but decrease player retention for players who do not like it.
If OW PvP doesn't have some intrinsic value in and of itself, then you can slot in any mechanic and that mechanic will have the same effect on players. It will increase retention for players that like it and decrease retention for players that don't.
Eve demonstrates this. Players who enjoy OW PvP will run around getting into PvP. Players who do not enjoy PvP run around in High Sec space. Eve retains players by giving the people who aren't into OW PvP something else to do that's useful and not just a time sink.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
It is very easy to understand the meaningfullness of pvp in fantasy games when you are peasfully collecting som herbs and a horde of pvp'ers come and kill you over and over, must feel very meaningfull for them to se Another player leav the game.
Congratulations. You've just joined the ranks of non-pvp players that have arrogantly asserted their claim while not understanding the ow pvp's claim. For as much as you guys claim about pvp'ers being unreasonable, you guys sure can be unreasonable.
The possibility of losing your things, makes keeping those things more interesting to me. It makes for a deeper game if there's risk/reward.
I'm starting to see a pattern here... Anyone who doesn't agree with you is "arrogant."
NO. I mainly respond to people being arrogant. That's WHY I'm responding. I wouldn't respond to somebody simply saying "I prefer my games to not have ow pvp." I'm responding to the people who say things like "people only want ow pvp because they're psychopaths."
Weird because I never said anything slightly arrogant and yet you called me arrogant.
"Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
That's not arrogant? It's arrogant because you're asserting that the depth that pvp adds is just around "killing pve players that want nothing to do with pvp." That doesn't even scratch the surface of why we prefer ow pvp games. You're arrogantly boiling down the subject to one inaccurate sarcastic statement that ALSO has the added benefit of insulting people who pvp.
You clearly have no clue what the term arrogant means. I was literally quoting your words! Since when was quoting considered arrogant? And I never insulted PvPers. Why you insist on seeing attacks on you when there are literally none is beyond me.
You were quoting my words in a sarcastic way. And I've already explained in detail why it was arrogant. Do you care to refute it in any kind of objective way? Or are you just going to drag this out for no reason?
It's insulting to suggest that the only thing about ow pvp games is people "going around killing pve players that want nothing to do with pvp" That's what you said, and it's arrogant and insulting. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that? Really?
I actually never said that was the only thing that happened. I said that was a major thing that happened. I find it insulting that you put words in people's mouths and tell them that they are attacking you when they've already said they in fact weren't. If I were attacking you I would make it sure as hell clear that you knew it and would tell you I'm insulting you. Since this isn't the case you're completely overreacting and finding attacks on your character where there are none.
Sandbox and owpvp don't have to go together. You are asking for anarchy and for the world to be made up nothing but online psychopaths and prison gangs running around raping and pillaging until the game dies and then whining because the world is dead. Sandbox is just more freedom than theme parks, because even when we were kids playing in a sand box there were borders to keep the sand in place or if not eventually you spread the sand to thin and were left with dirt. Sandbox games are same way without out some borders in the end you are left with anything worthwhile. Now a set up similar to DAoC frontiers with some sections sectioned off for strictly pve would be fine otherwise in the end you will have hordes of Urmomismyotherepicmount and Ipwnnoobs killing and teabagging new players until they leave. Then those same people will show up here complaining about dead world when they are the cancer that kills games. Online communities are just like real life with out law and order in place too many of us are quick to be nothing more than violent little mindless beast at the first sign of a crack in society.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
It is very easy to understand the meaningfullness of pvp in fantasy games when you are peasfully collecting som herbs and a horde of pvp'ers come and kill you over and over, must feel very meaningfull for them to se Another player leav the game.
Congratulations. You've just joined the ranks of non-pvp players that have arrogantly asserted their claim while not understanding the ow pvp's claim. For as much as you guys claim about pvp'ers being unreasonable, you guys sure can be unreasonable.
The possibility of losing your things, makes keeping those things more interesting to me. It makes for a deeper game if there's risk/reward.
I'm starting to see a pattern here... Anyone who doesn't agree with you is "arrogant."
NO. I mainly respond to people being arrogant. That's WHY I'm responding. I wouldn't respond to somebody simply saying "I prefer my games to not have ow pvp." I'm responding to the people who say things like "people only want ow pvp because they're psychopaths."
Weird because I never said anything slightly arrogant and yet you called me arrogant.
"Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
That's not arrogant? It's arrogant because you're asserting that the depth that pvp adds is just around "killing pve players that want nothing to do with pvp." That doesn't even scratch the surface of why we prefer ow pvp games. You're arrogantly boiling down the subject to one inaccurate sarcastic statement that ALSO has the added benefit of insulting people who pvp.
You clearly have no clue what the term arrogant means. I was literally quoting your words! Since when was quoting considered arrogant? And I never insulted PvPers. Why you insist on seeing attacks on you when there are literally none is beyond me.
You were quoting my words in a sarcastic way. And I've already explained in detail why it was arrogant. Do you care to refute it in any kind of objective way? Or are you just going to drag this out for no reason?
It's insulting to suggest that the only thing about ow pvp games is people "going around killing pve players that want nothing to do with pvp" That's what you said, and it's arrogant and insulting. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that? Really?
I actually never said that was the only thing that happened. I said that was a major thing that happened. I find it insulting that you put words in people's mouths and tell them that they are attacking you when they've already said they in fact weren't. If I were attacking you I would make it sure as hell clear that you knew it and would tell you I'm insulting you. Since this isn't the case you're completely overreacting and finding attacks on your character where there are none.
Maybe try to read a little harder... to my words and yours.
I said *suggested* it. I deliberately used the word suggested because I knew you were going to pull some preschool level debating and say "I never TECHNICALLY said that's all there was to it."
When I say ow pvp adds depth, and you say how does X add depth, that is suggesting that the only thing about ow pvp is X. If it wasn't, then why wouldn't you name the other aspects of ow pvp? Because you were in fact saying that the only thing about ow pvp is pvp players killing pve players who want nothing to do with pvp. That's what your words mean. I'm not about to start telling you how basic deductive reasoning works. Goodness, this isn't hard stuff.
Pointing to a non-pvp game that has community involvement doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying you can't have community involvement without pvp. I'm saying it adds more community involvement than a game without it.
Correct. As I said, you are dismissing the fact that there is another option - an alternative to OW PVP.
"Dismissing" how? I'm merely saying that an ow pvp game is more community involvement than one of similar quality without ow pvp. I'm not sure how that dismisses anything.
You are basing that on the absence of open world PVP without some other system to create community involvement in its place. We have already seen in other games that not only do other systems work, but they promote high community involvement. Additionally, we've seen that they can result in very high retention rates, as shown by the fact that most players of ATITD have been playing since the First or Second Telling.
I would like to know good and realiable substitutes for OW PVP and its consequences that can be placed in a AAA sandbox mmo, allowing it stilly dispense the ow pvp system, without fear of losing money in a big budget mmo.
Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
I'm not going to fault you for being so uninformed about the subject of ow pvp games, but try not to be so arrogant about something you don't understand.
It is very easy to understand the meaningfullness of pvp in fantasy games when you are peasfully collecting som herbs and a horde of pvp'ers come and kill you over and over, must feel very meaningfull for them to se Another player leav the game.
Congratulations. You've just joined the ranks of non-pvp players that have arrogantly asserted their claim while not understanding the ow pvp's claim. For as much as you guys claim about pvp'ers being unreasonable, you guys sure can be unreasonable.
The possibility of losing your things, makes keeping those things more interesting to me. It makes for a deeper game if there's risk/reward.
I'm starting to see a pattern here... Anyone who doesn't agree with you is "arrogant."
NO. I mainly respond to people being arrogant. That's WHY I'm responding. I wouldn't respond to somebody simply saying "I prefer my games to not have ow pvp." I'm responding to the people who say things like "people only want ow pvp because they're psychopaths."
Weird because I never said anything slightly arrogant and yet you called me arrogant.
"Yes, because it's "deeper" and "meaningful" PvP when you go around killing PvE players that want nothing to do with PvP. Super "deep" and "meaningful."
That's not arrogant? It's arrogant because you're asserting that the depth that pvp adds is just around "killing pve players that want nothing to do with pvp." That doesn't even scratch the surface of why we prefer ow pvp games. You're arrogantly boiling down the subject to one inaccurate sarcastic statement that ALSO has the added benefit of insulting people who pvp.
You clearly have no clue what the term arrogant means. I was literally quoting your words! Since when was quoting considered arrogant? And I never insulted PvPers. Why you insist on seeing attacks on you when there are literally none is beyond me.
You were quoting my words in a sarcastic way. And I've already explained in detail why it was arrogant. Do you care to refute it in any kind of objective way? Or are you just going to drag this out for no reason?
It's insulting to suggest that the only thing about ow pvp games is people "going around killing pve players that want nothing to do with pvp" That's what you said, and it's arrogant and insulting. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that? Really?
I actually never said that was the only thing that happened. I said that was a major thing that happened. I find it insulting that you put words in people's mouths and tell them that they are attacking you when they've already said they in fact weren't. If I were attacking you I would make it sure as hell clear that you knew it and would tell you I'm insulting you. Since this isn't the case you're completely overreacting and finding attacks on your character where there are none.
Maybe try to read a little harder... to my words and yours.
I said *suggested* it. I deliberately used the word suggested because I knew you were going to pull some preschool level debating and say "I never TECHNICALLY said that's all there was to it."
When I say ow pvp adds depth, and you say how does X add depth, that is suggesting that the only thing about ow pvp is X. If it wasn't, then why wouldn't you name the other aspects of ow pvp? Because you were in fact saying that the only thing about ow pvp is pvp players killing pve players who want nothing to do with pvp. That's what your words mean. I'm not about to start telling you how basic deductive reasoning works. Goodness, this isn't hard stuff.
Please do continue telling people what they are thinking and actually mean. Seriously and you're calling others arrogant? I am frankly done with even bothering to reply to you because you're nothing but rude, you twist everyone's words, and think everyone is out to get you when they're not.
Comments
Pointing to a non-pvp game that has community involvement doesn't mean anything. I'm not saying you can't have community involvement without pvp. I'm saying it adds more community involvement than a game without it.
Sure you can have collaboration and cooperation in a pve game, but it's probably going to take more resources from the developer to do so. A game with ow pvp naturally introduces new heroes/enemies and also introduces new meta. Against even the best AI, people are eventually going to figure it out and come up with the best way to tackle it.
Also, you're missing out on the flip side of collaboration and cooperation. You're missing out on the villains. I didn't play ATitD but I doubt you could have the same level of backstabbing or espionage as you could in a game like Darkfall.
sorry but neither is evidence - people who are vocal about anything in mmorpgs are just really small (i think according to some research it was like 5% or somethign like that, not really sure but some really small number)
people who play darkfall (or all sandbox mmorpgs together) are just small part of mmorpg player base.
any other evidence?
What a loaded statement. How can one have total control without restrictions?
I don't think OW PVP has anything to do with a sandbox being successful. Does it improve retention? Maybe, but the same could be said for any well designed tool that a game could have.
No, some of us do NOT have a MMORPG made "exactly the way you want them".
We did, but the two of three we did have are now history (due to changes [DAoC] and/or closure [SWG] ). Not all areas in DAoC were PvP and a Player could stay unflagged for PvP in SWG. DAoC wasn't sandbox per se, but I sem to recall it playing more like a sandbox than most themeparks do now (original DAoC pre-TOA, not the improved DAoC without arrows).
One remains afaik.... Wurm Online, Freedom Isles Servers. There I can have all the sandbox goodness I could possibly digest and enjoy, without PvP.... until I remind myself of how it is and has been managed over the years, how many times Rolf has made split second decisions that benefited almost no one, or just the PvP Players on Wild and now Epic. Or how a few years back he made the Old Home servers "Raid"able PvP wise without warning (Home servers back then were non PvP)... I could go on for pages but suffice it to say I finely wisened up and quit in June. I miss Wurm but I do not miss Rolf's antics.
So like I said, some of us don't have the MMORPG we want, and I doubt we ever will after reading the posts of Devs and Staffers on this website.
But back to Topic, here is to you getting that OW PvP you want.... some of us might as well be happy. Cheers. **raises his Mug in Salute and Toast**
i think saxx0n just shot himself in the leg, because if this is "whine thread about pvp", it is actually whine thread about pvp from a pvp fan, not from "pve people"
No that would be silly. Why do these people have the right to "politic" in peace?
Yeah.. and we have all those demonstrations, revolutions, civil wars, wars about resources, wars about territory, wars about opinion, wars about human rights, wars about whatever.
Can i opt in in your world? Sounds so peacefully.
Thank you for making my argument. The idea of politics and religion without war is silly.
Excellent post. I personally feel that covers the basic concept of what a sandbox is and states it very clearly.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The OP does realize he contradicted his own post by mentioning WOW right.
You can't sit there and make an argument about retention rates of theme parks while trying to exclude the biggest and best retaining themepark.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
So I can point towards people who are enthusiastic about the player made stories in a game. Can you point me towards a community that is as active in and enthralled by the developer-written story in a game?
Your post summarized very well my thesis in the thread. Gratz.
"Dismissing" how? I'm merely saying that an ow pvp game is more community involvement than one of similar quality without ow pvp. I'm not sure how that dismisses anything.
Nobody has present any kind of non-pvp player driven content that I've heard. And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't assume things about my playstyle. And how exactly does lawmaking work without the threat of force? The point isn't to beat people into a submission for not agreeing with your in-game goals. But the most potent way to drive story lines, politics, etc is through conflict, and people collaborating and cooperating with each other to wipe out rivals, or defend themselves from outside threats.
You say a game with new objectives and obstacles has been presented "many times" in this thread. May I ask where? I haven't seen any specific ideas or examples.
If it's created by the developers, that's a lot of time and money wasted that could be going into enhancing the core features of the game. By having OW PvP the players create the content themselves, which is cheaper than a developer having to always be working on a new expansion with more dungeons, quests, etc.
You've said many times that ideas have been offered, and I'm curious as to what they are.
In the real world we have a complicated and fully functional government. If you could implement a similar system in a game, then I'll play it. But until then, ow pvp is by far the most effective way to promote player-driven content. If you have a better specific example, I'm all ears.
*EDIT* So I realized that your whole point is kind of..... pointless. Even if there were other features besides OW PvP that promote player-drive content, the fact remains that OW PvP promotes MORE player-driven content than no OW PvP. For instance, you allude to the fact that our lawmakers have plenty of "content" and are quite busy doing things other than punching each other in the face. Suppose you made a game like that. Yes there would be player driven content, for sure. But wouldn't there be significantly more if you ALSO had OW PvP? How busy would our politicians be if war and violence didn't exist?
You are basing that on the absence of open world PVP without some other system to create community involvement in its place. We have already seen in other games that not only do other systems work, but they promote high community involvement. Additionally, we've seen that they can result in very high retention rates, as shown by the fact that most players of ATITD have been playing since the First or Second Telling.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
What system are you talking about? I've asked a few times now. I can't think of a system that promotes player involvement better than ow pvp and ALSO is mutually exclusive to ow pvp.
You clearly have no clue what the term arrogant means. I was literally quoting your words! Since when was quoting considered arrogant? And I never insulted PvPers. Why you insist on seeing attacks on you when there are literally none is beyond me.
Smile
You were quoting my words in a sarcastic way. And I've already explained in detail why it was arrogant. Do you care to refute it in any kind of objective way? Or are you just going to drag this out for no reason?
It's insulting to suggest that the only thing about ow pvp games is people "going around killing pve players that want nothing to do with pvp" That's what you said, and it's arrogant and insulting. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that? Really?
It's relevant to the thread's central idea there in the title.
If OW PvP doesn't have some intrinsic value, then it doesn't in general increase player retention. It would increase player retention for players who like it, but decrease player retention for players who do not like it.
If OW PvP doesn't have some intrinsic value in and of itself, then you can slot in any mechanic and that mechanic will have the same effect on players. It will increase retention for players that like it and decrease retention for players that don't.
Eve demonstrates this. Players who enjoy OW PvP will run around getting into PvP. Players who do not enjoy PvP run around in High Sec space. Eve retains players by giving the people who aren't into OW PvP something else to do that's useful and not just a time sink.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I actually never said that was the only thing that happened. I said that was a major thing that happened. I find it insulting that you put words in people's mouths and tell them that they are attacking you when they've already said they in fact weren't. If I were attacking you I would make it sure as hell clear that you knew it and would tell you I'm insulting you. Since this isn't the case you're completely overreacting and finding attacks on your character where there are none.
Smile
Maybe try to read a little harder... to my words and yours.
I said *suggested* it. I deliberately used the word suggested because I knew you were going to pull some preschool level debating and say "I never TECHNICALLY said that's all there was to it."
When I say ow pvp adds depth, and you say how does X add depth, that is suggesting that the only thing about ow pvp is X. If it wasn't, then why wouldn't you name the other aspects of ow pvp? Because you were in fact saying that the only thing about ow pvp is pvp players killing pve players who want nothing to do with pvp. That's what your words mean. I'm not about to start telling you how basic deductive reasoning works. Goodness, this isn't hard stuff.
I would like to know good and realiable substitutes for OW PVP and its consequences that can be placed in a AAA sandbox mmo, allowing it stilly dispense the ow pvp system, without fear of losing money in a big budget mmo.
Please do continue telling people what they are thinking and actually mean. Seriously and you're calling others arrogant? I am frankly done with even bothering to reply to you because you're nothing but rude, you twist everyone's words, and think everyone is out to get you when they're not.
Smile