Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Most Frustrating Part of Gaming Community

13

Comments

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 667
    Kyleran said:
    aummoid said:
    To me, the most frustrating part of the MMORPG community are the ones who act like everyone else in the game exists to be their victims, then act surprised when everyone else in the game either demands changes to the game or stops playing it entirely.

    I mean, seriously: if it happened in the last ten games you tanked, what makes you think that the current game will be any different?
    I don't know why developers keep trying to mix substantive progression with PvP.
    When I see those two features advertised together I give the game a hard pass.

    That aside, can you blame the players viewing others as victims when the game advertises that you can be an outcast and prey on the weak?  Again, it is an advertised feature of the game that you can make other players your target - so I don't see how players to buy that game for that feature would be irritating to anyone.

    Full disclosure: I don't PvP.  Period.  So my post isn't a veiled attempt to defend ganking. 

    I'm just puzzled by people who buy a game that advertises feature X and then immediately petition the developers to remove feature X.

    It is like buying Madden 2019 and petitioning the developers to stop making the game all about football and to add more car theft and gunplay.






    Well it would be helpful if developers quit designing their games with activites such as mining which clearly (but not exclusively) appeal to the more PVE minded player (aka as "prey" or "sheep") in order to "encourage" player conflict. 

    It's a terrible mechanic which has oft been repeated and failed in far too many games especially when the victim has no chance to fight or flee.

    I am "Prey" (might make that the name of my next alt) and I will play in PVP centric games as long as there is a way for me to control my level of risk and strong mechanics to avoid being caught. 

    EVE does this very well, providing several warning mechanisms such a local, ship scanning, and player corps often set up Intel networks to track enemy ship movements.

    PVPers often complain it's too difficult to catch PVERs unaware but I just view that as crocodile tears considering I'm normally the only one who loses much of anything in such encounters. 

    ;)


    while mining might appeal to pvp minded players more, it's not put in there to lure pve players out. Even if the game was 100% pvp minded players, someone would have to mine the ore in order to make the weapons. This lures anyone out and create hot spots.

    I am not advocating for such hot spots or against them, just pointing out that just because there is mining it doesn't mean it was put there to appease the PVE players, but rather a part of immersion. Typically the type of player this game is designed for a mixed breed of PVP and PVE lovers. Some people sway more one way than the other, but that's the general target demographic.
    Sovrath
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 32,031
    Sovrath said:
    My thought in your original example is that to me introducing these choke points at mining camps does not encourage pvp...it encourages griefing.  

    Encouraging pvp against a crafter is about stupid.  I can hear the defense of this now...well the crafter should join a guild and bring a whole bunch of people to defend him.  For what?  So they can stand there and watch him mine?  That's fun.....


    We used to have a lot of fun in lineage 2 defending our clan mates while they are getting rid of "red"

    There was the time, in Cruma where an alliance took over the entire dungeon and wouldn't allow people to get in.

    It took a lot of people to break their way into it and fight that alliance.

    What you don't get, and others who share the same view, is that "open pvp" is exactly about those moments. It's about hunting a red down over the desert or running to the noob area to take out a group of reds who are hunting low level players.

    It IS fun.

    The question is, why do people play these games when the shouldn't be playing these games?
    You are using a "poor" example as you are holding up a PVP game which had considerable design controls to discourage rampant griefing, which resulted in the "fun" PVP experiences you enjoyed without driving most others away.

    As stated previously, some of us enjoy PVP games which are well thought out such as L2 DAOC, (I played on FFA servers or EVE) even if we are more carebears at heart.

    Gankboxes such as DF never held any appeal, nor did WOW PVE servers, I played on Kel Thuzad, PVP server back in the day for the extra challenge. 




    Torval

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,374
    Kyleran said:
    Well it would be helpful if developers quit designing their games with activites such as mining which clearly (but not exclusively) appeal to the more PVE minded player (aka as "prey" or "sheep") in order to "encourage" player conflict. 

    It's a terrible mechanic which has oft been repeated and failed in far too many games especially when the victim has no chance to fight or flee.

    I am "Prey" (might make that the name of my next alt) and I will play in PVP centric games as long as there is a way for me to control my level of risk and strong mechanics to avoid being caught. 

    EVE does this very well, providing several warning mechanisms such a local, ship scanning, and player corps often set up Intel networks to track enemy ship movements.

    PVPers often complain it's too difficult to catch PVERs unaware but I just view that as crocodile tears considering I'm normally the only one who loses much of anything in such encounters. 

    ;)


    Your description sounds a lot like Uncharted Waters Online.  It's nearly impossible to catch a player who is actively trying not to get caught, no matter how much higher level and better gear you have.  Much of the world is open PVP, but the penalties for it are harsh enough that most players won't attack you.
    KyleranPhry
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 25,918
    edited January 9
    Kyleran said:
    Sovrath said:
    My thought in your original example is that to me introducing these choke points at mining camps does not encourage pvp...it encourages griefing.  

    Encouraging pvp against a crafter is about stupid.  I can hear the defense of this now...well the crafter should join a guild and bring a whole bunch of people to defend him.  For what?  So they can stand there and watch him mine?  That's fun.....


    We used to have a lot of fun in lineage 2 defending our clan mates while they are getting rid of "red"

    There was the time, in Cruma where an alliance took over the entire dungeon and wouldn't allow people to get in.

    It took a lot of people to break their way into it and fight that alliance.

    What you don't get, and others who share the same view, is that "open pvp" is exactly about those moments. It's about hunting a red down over the desert or running to the noob area to take out a group of reds who are hunting low level players.

    It IS fun.

    The question is, why do people play these games when the shouldn't be playing these games?
    You are using a "poor" example as you are holding up a PVP game which had considerable design controls to discourage rampant griefing, which resulted in the "fun" PVP experiences you enjoyed without driving most others away.

    As stated previously, some of us enjoy PVP games which are well thought out such as L2 DAOC, (I played on FFA servers or EVE) even if we are more carebears at heart.

    Gankboxes such as DF never held any appeal, nor did WOW PVE servers, I played on Kel Thuzad, PVP server back in the day for the extra challenge. 




    Ok, I'm at a loss. Name a game that has open pvp that isn't considered a "pvp game."

    EVE? Seems like a pvp game to me. I also remember, the twice I tried it, getting killed in the sector for noobs. And he took my ore. No idea how that happened.


    Gdemami



  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,374
    Kyleran said:
    Well it would be helpful if developers quit designing their games with activites such as mining which clearly (but not exclusively) appeal to the more PVE minded player (aka as "prey" or "sheep") in order to "encourage" player conflict. 

    It's a terrible mechanic which has oft been repeated and failed in far too many games especially when the victim has no chance to fight or flee.

    I think it is fair to question why someone would build a game like in the first place; however, this thread is more along the lines of "Why would someone buy a game a major element of which they detest?"

    I don't really want this thread to be about ganking because I think we all agree that is unappealing.  

    What is frustrating is when a game runs an ad like this:

    GAME: Medieval Village
    ADVERTISEMENT: Play this game to enjoy a really detailed and accurate roleplay of what like would be like to live, prosper, and die in a 1400 A.D. medieval village.

    Next day on Medieval Village Forums: This game needs more mech warriors.  The developers need to do this NOW or the game will die.  What noobs built this game leaving out people who like to drive mech warriors?  Are you all racists or what?

    So then someone points out the name of the game is "Medieval Village" and how the ads made it clear what the game was about and the response is "Oh, so we have to play the game your way do we?"  About 500 people who shouldn't even be in the game chime in with "BUT WE PAID GOOD MONEY FOR THIS GAME" and somehow it is a civil rights violation to not take their criticism seriously.

    At some point I think it is fair to say: You are an idiot for not understanding that feature X means that feature X will be in the game.  If you don't like feature X (when foundational to the game) then GTFO.


    How many features are foundational to a game?  If someone gets upset about the single, core, most important feature of a game, then yeah, he's being ridiculous.  But if there are ten things you're looking for in a game, no game has all ten, and a particular game has nine of the ten, you might play it anyway even though that tenth thing on your list is definitely not what you're looking for.
    Kyleranaummoid
  • VelifaxVelifax Member UncommonPosts: 405
    For me the most frustrating part of the gaming community, aside from the hackers and griefers, would be people who don't seem to comprehend the marketing materials and game FAQs.  I admit there was a time when I suffered from this problem - I'd buy a game, be surprised by the content, and then insist that the developers make changes to the game to meet my requirements.

    I honestly feel bad for developers on this point.
    They're in a  tough spot.

    For example, I'm posting on a game forum where people are complaining about 'choke points' in mining.  They're upset that players are forced to mine rare ores in well known locations that have limited entrances and exits.  They don't like this design because PKs make a nuisance of themselves and mining is difficult.  The suggested fix by the playerbase: Spread rare ores out all over the map so that we can avoid PKs.  This is in a PvP game, people.

    Naturally, there is nothing wrong with making suggestions to the developers on how to improve a game; however, this suggestion seems to fly in the face of an obviously intentional design choice that encourages player conflict.  In a PvP game the mechanics are supposed to encourage PvP - not work to avoid it.  Again, If you buy a PvP game then understand that it is going to be put together in such a way as to force player conflict.

    To me this is almost as ignorant as loading up Camelot Unchained and asking the developers when they'll implement intergalactic travel, trading, and space warfare.  Hey developers, thanks for the new chainmail armor, but I'm really wanting to get some cybernetic implants - when does that update drop?

    Reflexively I want to blame the developers in that they need to do a better job of communicating; however, for the game I'm talking about (Legends of Aria) the website brags about player vs. player conflict and that the world will be dangerous out in the wilds.  If you don't 'get it' after viewing the website then I don't know what the developers could do to make it clear.

    There is a corollary to this common and puzzling issue; namely the common idea that ones subjective preferences, say that "grinding" is bad, or that combat should be action packed and twitchy, are objectively better.

    It's super common for some reason.



    Gdemami
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,374
    But have you seen a successful game do that in the past ten years?


    I'm thinking this is as much a consumer tastes shift as anything else.  These days, "reds" don't exist without a full guild of buddies on Discord to back them up should someone give them a bit of resistance.

    Chasing off a red is fun, but when he returns with a group full or more as necessary to ensure they ruin the game for anyone in that zone, it's fun for no one but the group chasing people down they know can't defend themselves against their mini-zerg.


    In the end, wide open PvP is a very basic design philosophy.  No dev has had the creativity and/or guts the implement a law system that appropriately discourages random ganking to the point where PvP is relegated to meaningful encounters within the purview of the game world itself.
    The trick is to make it so that the mini-zerg of gankers doesn't work.  That way, the would-be ganker can get ten of his buddies to go chase around some intended prey.  But then they can't catch the prey, who gets away.  Knowing that that's probably going to happen, the mini-zerg never forms.  Easier to go kill some botter who won't flee.

    If that hasn't been your experience with open-world non-consensual PVP, then you haven't played Uncharted Waters Online.  Among the advantages that someone trying to escape has are:

    1)  You don't need a big crew to just sail around.  Between fishing and collecting rain, you can sail around pretty much indefinitely if you're not geared up for combat.  But you do need a big crew for combat, and they'll burn through your resources fast, so you'd better put into port to restock often.

    2)  Acceleration is about inversely proportional to the capacity of a ship.  For an adventuring ship, you go with the smallest capacity possible, so as to get the highest acceleration.  For a combat ship, you go with maximum capacity, so as to be able to load more crew, more cannons, more supplies, and so forth.  Higher level ships also tend to be larger, so the attacker tends to have much slower acceleration than the intended prey.  Weaker prey can thus often escape.  When a battle starts, both ships completely stop, so acceleration from a dead stop is enormously important.

    3)  You can query all of the players in your zone.  If you're not a pirate (or privateer, but let's just call them pirates for simplicity), you can hide your name from the query.  Pirates can't hide themselves from the query, nor their red name status as a pirate.  Potential prey can thus ask if there are any pirates in the zone and have the game tell him.  Pirates can ask about prey, but the game won't necessary answer.

    4)  The penalties for piracy are pretty harsh.  Most ports won't let you in without paying a large sum of money.  Other players will get a reward for sinking you.  If you don't have that bounty on you, it will take it out of your bank.  If you don't have the money in the bank, it will start vendoring items from your bank to generate it.  This can be worked around to some degree with alts, but still, it's a pain to be a pirate.  Meanwhile, attacking and sinking just one non-pirate player is enough to brand you as a pirate.  Others can attack and pillage you while you're a pirate without any such penalties.

    5)  You can log off in 15 seconds so long as you don't interact with the game in that time.  Turning will interrupt the logoff sequence, but continuing to sail along at full speed won't.  If you see a pirate coming for you and start logging off, he has 15 seconds to catch you and initiate combat before you're gone.  In a slow travel game, that's not very long.  Oh, and when you log back on, you recover your momentum exactly as it was before, so if the pirate decides to stop and wait where you logged off, you'll shoot past him and quickly be out of range.

    The upshot is that for the PVE player, the non-consensual PVP doesn't mean that you get ganked.  It means that you have to pay attention when you care if you get sunk, but nothing more.  I played the game for years, and likely put more hours into it than any other game ever.  I think I only lost a ship battle three times ever, all of which were because I wasn't particularly trying to be evasive.  Obvious bots, on the other hand, get pillaged quite a bit.

    The ganking problem isn't merely when other players can kill you.  It's when you have no way to escape or fight back.  Asking players to die a lot until they get sick of a game and quit is just terrible design.  For players to ask for other options besides dying hopelessly is a completely reasonable request, even if asking for PVP to be removed from a game whose entire point is PVP is not.
    MadFrenchieTrolldefender99CryomatrixPhryPalebane
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,374
    I should specify a PVP ship battle above.  I lost a lot more than three PVE ship battles.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,374

    I think if you join a PvP game, then you should be okay with whatever happens within allowed rules. EVE is a perfect example in that regard. Also, EVE is a great example where you can control your level of risk. 
    Sometimes the rules as stated allow behavior that is obviously undesirable and the rules should be amended.  It's perfectly reasonable for players to petition game developers for such fixes.

    Several years ago in NCAA football, the clock used to start on a kickoff when it was kicked, not when it was caught.  Then one coach decided to run out the clock before the half by having his players intentionally run way offsides so that the receiving team couldn't return the kickoff.  The first kick took several seconds off the clock.  It was a penalty and a rekick, so they did it again.  And again, until they ran out the clock.  The NCAA quickly changed the rule to prevent that from happening again.

    And that's in a heavily visible, well-studied game worth billions of dollars per year.  Computer games that are making things up as they go are a lot more likely to have rules that lead to unintended and undesirable consequences.
    Kyleran
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 19,869
    This sums it up 


    blueturtle13Trolldefender99TheScavengerpoorbaby
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,374
    No, but even devs with OWPvP don't encourage griefing.  Things like corpse camping lowbies.  Because they know that it's a death knell to support such behavior, and it doesn't matter if you advertise your game as a literal psycho shit show.

    Encouraging PvP and enabling and encouraging griefing are two different things, something those who try to defend and puff up OWPvP refuse to acknowledge.
    IMHO, substantial progression in an open world PVP (full loot, no less) is a recipe for disaster.
    There is no debate on that point - it has been proven many times.

    However, this thread isn't about that since it has been beaten to death about 1,000 times in this forum.

    The thread is about players who hate [insert feature] buying a game that advertises itself as [insert feature] and then demanding that the game be changed to no longer support [insert feature].

    That seems insane to me.
    Uncharted Waters Online has an enormous amount of progression, as well as open-world PVP for much of the world, and you can loot other players if you board and defeat them that way.  But it still works, even for the PVE crowd.  The key is that all that progression means that a weaker player may not be able to sink his attacker, but he sure can run away if he wants to.  If you add the additional condition that the progression means that a weaker player can't really do anything other than die, then yes, that's a disaster.
    KyleranPhry
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,374
    Sovrath said:
    Ok, I'm at a loss. Name a game that has open pvp that isn't considered a "pvp game."

    Uncharted Waters Online.  Probably less than 10% of the playerbase has attacked another player within the last week.
    SovrathPhry
  • sunandshadowsunandshadow Member RarePosts: 1,942
    For me the most frustrating part about the gaming community is how impossible it is to get a few people to agree about what they'd really like to play.  If indie development effort could be redistributed so there was more fan support and more dev and modder effort for each of a smaller number of projects, everyone would benefit.
    I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story.  So PM me if you are starting one.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 7,874
    edited January 9
    Quizzical said:
    No, but even devs with OWPvP don't encourage griefing.  Things like corpse camping lowbies.  Because they know that it's a death knell to support such behavior, and it doesn't matter if you advertise your game as a literal psycho shit show.

    Encouraging PvP and enabling and encouraging griefing are two different things, something those who try to defend and puff up OWPvP refuse to acknowledge.
    IMHO, substantial progression in an open world PVP (full loot, no less) is a recipe for disaster.
    There is no debate on that point - it has been proven many times.

    However, this thread isn't about that since it has been beaten to death about 1,000 times in this forum.

    The thread is about players who hate [insert feature] buying a game that advertises itself as [insert feature] and then demanding that the game be changed to no longer support [insert feature].

    That seems insane to me.
    Uncharted Waters Online has an enormous amount of progression, as well as open-world PVP for much of the world, and you can loot other players if you board and defeat them that way.  But it still works, even for the PVE crowd.  The key is that all that progression means that a weaker player may not be able to sink his attacker, but he sure can run away if he wants to.  If you add the additional condition that the progression means that a weaker player can't really do anything other than die, then yes, that's a disaster.
    Thought about getting into that one.  Not sure how I'd go about it, these old MMORPGs generally have such an old (in terms of in-game skill/level and items) playerbase.

    EDIT- Eh, reconsidering.  My first outing on the sea, headed to the newbie adventurer quest, and a PvE ship "ambushes" me with something like 7 more men and cannons, and is moving faster than I am.  He proceeds to murder my entire crew then the battle ends and I can't sail anywhere because I have no crew.  No indication that an ambush was waiting (don't even remember the tutorial mentioning ambushes), nor could I do anything to outrun the ship once it ambushed me.  Don't like immediately being put in no-win situations without explanation.  It reminded me of the number one reason I can't play old MMORPGs without UI updates: lack of good feedback to the player on actions taking place in the game.

    image
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,374
    edited January 9
    Quizzical said:
    No, but even devs with OWPvP don't encourage griefing.  Things like corpse camping lowbies.  Because they know that it's a death knell to support such behavior, and it doesn't matter if you advertise your game as a literal psycho shit show.

    Encouraging PvP and enabling and encouraging griefing are two different things, something those who try to defend and puff up OWPvP refuse to acknowledge.
    IMHO, substantial progression in an open world PVP (full loot, no less) is a recipe for disaster.
    There is no debate on that point - it has been proven many times.

    However, this thread isn't about that since it has been beaten to death about 1,000 times in this forum.

    The thread is about players who hate [insert feature] buying a game that advertises itself as [insert feature] and then demanding that the game be changed to no longer support [insert feature].

    That seems insane to me.
    Uncharted Waters Online has an enormous amount of progression, as well as open-world PVP for much of the world, and you can loot other players if you board and defeat them that way.  But it still works, even for the PVE crowd.  The key is that all that progression means that a weaker player may not be able to sink his attacker, but he sure can run away if he wants to.  If you add the additional condition that the progression means that a weaker player can't really do anything other than die, then yes, that's a disaster.
    Thought about getting into that one.  Not sure how I'd go about it, these old MMORPGs generally have such an old (in terms of in-game skill/level and items) playerbase.

    EDIT- Eh, reconsidering.  My first outing on the sea, headed to the newbie adventurer quest, and a PvE ship "ambushes" me with something like 7 more men and cannons, and is moving faster than I am.  He proceeds to murder my entire crew then the battle ends and I can't sail anywhere because I have no crew.  No indication that an ambush was waiting (don't even remember the tutorial mentioning ambushes), nor could I do anything to outrun the ship once it ambushed me.  Don't like immediately being put in no-win situations without explanation.  It reminded me of the number one reason I can't play old MMORPGs without UI updates: lack of good feedback to the player on actions taking place in the game.
    A battle ends if you sail outside of the combat circle.  It's common to be attacked by fleets that you can't beat, at least if you're not geared for combat.  But it's easy to run away from them.

    Do be warned that there are a ton of ways in which UWO doesn't follow conventions that you're used to.  Sometimes it's going to take 10 minutes of banging your head against a wall to figure out what you're supposed to do.  Or an hour.  But the game doesn't actually push you into impossible situations.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,374
    Also, you can eventually get some skill that I forget what it is that makes it so that you don't get ambushed anymore.  Until then, expect to get ambushed every few minutes at sea and have to run away.
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 32,031
    Quizzical said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ok, I'm at a loss. Name a game that has open pvp that isn't considered a "pvp game."

    Uncharted Waters Online.  Probably less than 10% of the playerbase has attacked another player within the last week.
    Heck, Lineage 2 back in the early days. Played for almost 6 months,  was attacked twice by a Red in all that time.



    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • WargfootYVWargfootYV Member UncommonPosts: 261
    edited January 9
    Quizzical said:


    How many features are foundational to a game?  If someone gets upset about the single, core, most important feature of a game, then yeah, he's being ridiculous.  But if there are ten things you're looking for in a game, no game has all ten, and a particular game has nine of the ten, you might play it anyway even though that tenth thing on your list is definitely not what you're looking for.
    First, there cannot be 10 foundational things to a game.
    You may be confusing 'features' with 'foundational' (as I use it here).

    Secondly, given that PvE vs. PvP is used to define entire servers - and that for many games that designation shows up on the server selection screen - it seems to me that wouldn't be just a feature but the absolute first consideration any gamer would ponder before entering a world.

    So if you log onto a PvP server and immediately try to circumvent PvP you're doing it wrong.

    It is as idiotic as logging into a PvE server and suggesting the developers allow open world PvP and begin making changes in that direction.
    Gdemami
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 32,031
    Quizzical said:


    How many features are foundational to a game?  If someone gets upset about the single, core, most important feature of a game, then yeah, he's being ridiculous.  But if there are ten things you're looking for in a game, no game has all ten, and a particular game has nine of the ten, you might play it anyway even though that tenth thing on your list is definitely not what you're looking for.
    First, there cannot be 10 foundational things to a game.
    You may be confusing 'features' with 'foundational' (as I use it here).

    Secondly, given that PvE vs. PvP is used to define entire servers - and that for many games that designation shows up on the server selection screen - it seems to me that wouldn't be just a feature but the absolute first consideration any gamer would ponder before entering a world.

    So if you log onto a PvP server and immediately try to circumvent PvP you're doing it wrong.

    It is as idiotic as logging into a PvE server and suggesting the developers allow open world PvP and begin making changes in that direction.
    If every game offered the choice of separate PVE/PVP only servers then your argument holds some merit.

    I think you will find the trend in recent years has been to provide only a single server type, usually PVP only.

    Besides, many people enjoy PVP and PVP so a  PVE only server isn't desirable. (I played EVE for more than 10 years)

    Still reasonable for them to ask developers to make changes to control bad player behaviors or bad designs which encourage such, at least if the devs would like to continue to get their money.

    Of course devs are free to ignore such, CCP did and lost me and several of my friends as paying customers two years ago.

    As you said, no point to keep playing a game which has disagreeable features that are not likely to change 
    aummoid

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 7,874
    edited January 9
    Quizzical said:
    Quizzical said:
    No, but even devs with OWPvP don't encourage griefing.  Things like corpse camping lowbies.  Because they know that it's a death knell to support such behavior, and it doesn't matter if you advertise your game as a literal psycho shit show.

    Encouraging PvP and enabling and encouraging griefing are two different things, something those who try to defend and puff up OWPvP refuse to acknowledge.
    IMHO, substantial progression in an open world PVP (full loot, no less) is a recipe for disaster.
    There is no debate on that point - it has been proven many times.

    However, this thread isn't about that since it has been beaten to death about 1,000 times in this forum.

    The thread is about players who hate [insert feature] buying a game that advertises itself as [insert feature] and then demanding that the game be changed to no longer support [insert feature].

    That seems insane to me.
    Uncharted Waters Online has an enormous amount of progression, as well as open-world PVP for much of the world, and you can loot other players if you board and defeat them that way.  But it still works, even for the PVE crowd.  The key is that all that progression means that a weaker player may not be able to sink his attacker, but he sure can run away if he wants to.  If you add the additional condition that the progression means that a weaker player can't really do anything other than die, then yes, that's a disaster.
    Thought about getting into that one.  Not sure how I'd go about it, these old MMORPGs generally have such an old (in terms of in-game skill/level and items) playerbase.

    EDIT- Eh, reconsidering.  My first outing on the sea, headed to the newbie adventurer quest, and a PvE ship "ambushes" me with something like 7 more men and cannons, and is moving faster than I am.  He proceeds to murder my entire crew then the battle ends and I can't sail anywhere because I have no crew.  No indication that an ambush was waiting (don't even remember the tutorial mentioning ambushes), nor could I do anything to outrun the ship once it ambushed me.  Don't like immediately being put in no-win situations without explanation.  It reminded me of the number one reason I can't play old MMORPGs without UI updates: lack of good feedback to the player on actions taking place in the game.
    A battle ends if you sail outside of the combat circle.  It's common to be attacked by fleets that you can't beat, at least if you're not geared for combat.  But it's easy to run away from them.

    Do be warned that there are a ton of ways in which UWO doesn't follow conventions that you're used to.  Sometimes it's going to take 10 minutes of banging your head against a wall to figure out what you're supposed to do.  Or an hour.  But the game doesn't actually push you into impossible situations.
    The Fallen Mercenary appeared to be faster than I was.  I continued sailing the same line as the battle started, but he appeared to be gaining on me.  At that point I tried adjusting course to attempt to gain speed, but there didn't appear to be a good indicator of my nautical speed anywhere I've been able to find, so I couldn't actually tell if any turns I made were speeding me up or slowing me down unless it was an extreme change.

    He quickly caught up and boarded, at which point I attempted to retreat, which failed and left me stranded.  All within the first few minutes at sea.

    It all happened before I had even gotten a chance to get invested into the game, the world, or my character, so it killed my desire to continue at the time.

    Alas, we're getting off-topic here.

    image
  • WargfootYVWargfootYV Member UncommonPosts: 261
    edited January 9
    Kyleran said:

    If every game offered the choice of separate PVE/PVP only servers then your argument holds some merit.

    I think you will find the trend in recent years has been to provide only a single server type, usually PVP only.
    Does every PvE game have to provide a Full Loot, Open World, PvP server then?

    And again, all this is beside the point.

    If you don't like a PvP game then why buy one?  Sure, it might be better for the business model, etc - but why buy a game when you don't like a fundamental aspect of the game.

    It isn't frustrating to me that games come and go or have different rulesets.
    It is frustrating that a person would buy a game with a particular ruleset and then immediately attempt to make it exactly the opposite - blaming the developers and people who bought the game because of that ruleset along the way.
    Gdemami
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 25,918
    Kyleran said:
    Quizzical said:


    How many features are foundational to a game?  If someone gets upset about the single, core, most important feature of a game, then yeah, he's being ridiculous.  But if there are ten things you're looking for in a game, no game has all ten, and a particular game has nine of the ten, you might play it anyway even though that tenth thing on your list is definitely not what you're looking for.
    First, there cannot be 10 foundational things to a game.
    You may be confusing 'features' with 'foundational' (as I use it here).

    Secondly, given that PvE vs. PvP is used to define entire servers - and that for many games that designation shows up on the server selection screen - it seems to me that wouldn't be just a feature but the absolute first consideration any gamer would ponder before entering a world.

    So if you log onto a PvP server and immediately try to circumvent PvP you're doing it wrong.

    It is as idiotic as logging into a PvE server and suggesting the developers allow open world PvP and begin making changes in that direction.
    If every game offered the choice of separate PVE/PVP only servers then your argument holds some merit.


    It still holds merit.

    Pve/pvp servers - pve/pvp games.

    Just choose games that have features you want and stay away from games that have features you dislike.

    Maybe that's my frustration of certain members of the community, some think every game needs to be for them.
    WargfootYVGdemami



  • WargfootYVWargfootYV Member UncommonPosts: 261
    Sovrath said:

    Maybe that's my frustration of certain members of the community, some think every game needs to be for them.
    Exactly.
    Absolutely, Freakin', Exactly.
    Gdemami
  • ScotScot Member EpicPosts: 10,370
    cheyane said:
    Scorchien said:
        
       2 things .. People who buy EA games .. then piss and moan about performance/ content/bugs/rollbacks etc....   it may be as stupid as a person can achieve

      
      2nd ..  People who join PVP games but dont want PVP ..
    I've been guilty of the second one.  I've played open world PvP games that had IMO, excellently done PvE content.  But I usually don't complain because clearly the game stated it was open PvP.  
    Me too I played BDO and never once complained about the PvP. Well no one ever tried to kill me....there is that.
    I was killed three times and played about three to four months. There were some places you could go to that were more dangerous though. Not counting guild v guild wars here.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

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

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • ScotScot Member EpicPosts: 10,370
    Sovrath said:
    Kyleran said:
    Quizzical said:


    How many features are foundational to a game?  If someone gets upset about the single, core, most important feature of a game, then yeah, he's being ridiculous.  But if there are ten things you're looking for in a game, no game has all ten, and a particular game has nine of the ten, you might play it anyway even though that tenth thing on your list is definitely not what you're looking for.
    First, there cannot be 10 foundational things to a game.
    You may be confusing 'features' with 'foundational' (as I use it here).

    Secondly, given that PvE vs. PvP is used to define entire servers - and that for many games that designation shows up on the server selection screen - it seems to me that wouldn't be just a feature but the absolute first consideration any gamer would ponder before entering a world.

    So if you log onto a PvP server and immediately try to circumvent PvP you're doing it wrong.

    It is as idiotic as logging into a PvE server and suggesting the developers allow open world PvP and begin making changes in that direction.
    If every game offered the choice of separate PVE/PVP only servers then your argument holds some merit.


    It still holds merit.

    Pve/pvp servers - pve/pvp games.

    Just choose games that have features you want and stay away from games that have features you dislike.

    Maybe that's my frustration of certain members of the community, some think every game needs to be for them.
    Or go realm versus realm, all the fun of PVP and if you don't like it you can ignore it.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

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

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

Sign In or Register to comment.