Howdy, Stranger!

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

Full loot PVP MMOs, why do indi developers keep making them?

1101113151629

Comments

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,159
    The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer ;)
    Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play. 

    This thread was answered a long time ago. The real question should be “why complain when small companies try to shake things up and do things differently?”
    Nobody complains, but I personally don't like good ideas wasted and failing because of elements like full loot PvP.
    That’s complaining. This thread is complaining. They are the devs, they are the ones taking the time and risk to create their dream they are not working for you. It’s not like there isn’t a multitude of non full loot games to choose from. 
    I see. You're the kind of guy for whom everything not going your way is complaining.
    You must have a very sad life surrounded by complainers.

    There's still no explanation of why all those MMOs miserably fail, though.
    They are bad game mechanical, technically and many time make poor choices with gameplay. Do you really think Mortal Online would be successful if it was PvE?  
    I wouldn’t call it a failure since it’s still running, has a fan base and the company clearly makes money on it. Like someone earlier asked, why is it people think an mmo needs 5m players to be successful?
    I meant more an overwhelming success.  The notion that PvP is a failure because of low budget ones aren't overwhelming successes.  No low budget MMORPG is an overwhelming success.
    If I made an mmo that kept me and the team employed and we enjoyed working on it I would consider it a massive success. This thought process of it not being a success is precisely why you don’t see varying styles of mmo and probably a very good reason why many players  don’t even try a game out to see if they would like it. The most common question before any other when checking out an MMO, “hows the population?”. Then someone proceeds to compare it to WoW instead of the relationship of the population and what makes that particular game enjoyable. 
    PhaserlightikcinSteelhelmCryomatrixManWithNoTan
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,356
    edited February 20
    Ungood said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:
    I get that you disagree, so, here is your chance.. "Change my mind"
    It's not just a disagreement, you aren't listening.

    One isolated game of chess is like an isolated pvp encounter. 

    An individual fight between players is not even remotely like a game of chess unless you live in a box and think every PvP encounter in these games goes like "Oh I say Good chap.. lets us duel.. and have a game of it, best 2 out of 3 would seem right?"

    This I said you were being deliberately obtuse, and does seem to be your style, at this point.
     
    Well it's rather an imperfect analogy you used isn't it? Of course I'm not saying that they play out the same way or have the same level of game play. Don't be foolish, try to read between the lines. geez! Just like there is an i win you lose situation in chess there is an i win you lose situation in a pvp match. Plain and simple.

    But it's not an endless running around violence for violence sake grind. You might not get it and no one expects you to, but you are going to have to accept that people enjoy it for exactly what it is.

    Which goes back to the original post, people are making these games because they like them, enjoy them.
    Steelhelm



  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Sovrath said:

    But again, what you don't get is what happens during a fight is what is valued. You are just looking at it as chess you win or lose but pvp is just ever repeating without actually understanding what goes on during pvp.

    Which is confusing because if you did in fact engage in pvp in Guild Wars 2 then why don't you understand this? Unless of course there isn't much to the individual fights/skirmishes in Guild WArs 2 pvp.

    Eh? During the fight was pointless, no one cared about the fight itself, dying and killing were part of the conflict, but only the final outcome mattered really, unless something really amazing happened, like the time our guild leader got shot out of the sky by a catapult.. we laughed about that for a while.. but, nahh man, this was a battle, there was winning and losing to be had here. We were going to either defend the point or lose it, and if we lost it, we might lose the whole match.. so yah.. no one cared about if you fought good, or whatever.

    Killing me was not a game of chess.. I am but a pawn on the board..  Taking this Keep was not the game of Chess.... that was nothing more than another piece on the board.. winning the match.. now THAT was the game of Chess.

    That is why Skirmishes were over Point Control (Towers, Keeps, Camps), we didn't fight just to fight.

    That's my whole point, once my server got stuck in bottom tier, the fighting became just  to fight, it didn't matter if we won or lost.. the WvW became violence for the sake it, killing to kill.

    But, maybe you are so confused because you never played a game where you could win or lose as a team, so, all you have known is killing for the sake of killing.. does not change what it is.. just means you never knew better PvP.
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,356
    Ungood said:

    But, maybe you are so confused because you never played a game where you could win or lose as a team, so, all you have known is killing for the sake of killing.. does not change what it is.. just means you never knew better PvP.
    My you are a piece of work aren't you?

    Also this "violence for violence sake/sake of killing thing" needs to stop. These games are mostly as violent as a football match.
    squibbly



  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,206
    edited February 20
    BadSpock said:
    ikcin said:
    BadSpock said:
    It's because PvP is cheap, easy content.


    In fact it is much easier to make PvE content. Much easier. Also the PvP is bad for the developer, as he gets paid for the updates and the development. It is much easier to add a new map, with some 3D elements and cool textures. In the PvP you need much more codding for physics, the triggering, the calculations of in general random events and the balance - something most games never make right. If you think PvP is cheap or easy -  you know nothing about the games.
    Well that's entirely false.

    You miss the point entirely. You also contradict yourself saying on one hand that's it's "easier to add a new map" i.e. PvP but also random events (not in PvP) and balance - something that is equally difficult in both PvE and PvP.

    Perhaps you are forgetting that it's new PvE content that requires new maps, new quests, new enemies, new animations, new behaviors, new triggers, new items and gear, new mechanics, new sound assets, new cinematics, etc. etc. etc.

    I can add a PvP map and change nothing else about the game and players will eat it up.

    Think I could add a new PvE zone with the same mobs, same quests, same bosses, same story, and same cinematics and have players be happy? 

    Content takes time to make. Lots of time. Lots of people.

    Hence, why most if not all indy MMOs are so light on actual developer curated "themepark" content. They instead rely on systems, i.e. sandbox, and "players as content" a.k.a. PvP.
    You never saw a code of a MMORPG, did not you? The new content is the deal both for the publisher and the developer. That is why all love PvE games. Easy to make, and generate work, so income. The same things are much harder if you have to upgrade the PvP. To make even one new class in a PvP game is equal to a new game. 

    When you put players versus players - both generate random events. And that makes the coding incredibly complicated. The AI makes the things easier. So for the developers is always better to make a PvE content. So why they make PvP content? Well probably they like it. But also - there is much bigger market. All dream to reach the LoL and the Fortnite numbers.
    BadSpock
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:
    I get that you disagree, so, here is your chance.. "Change my mind"
    It's not just a disagreement, you aren't listening.

    One isolated game of chess is like an isolated pvp encounter. 

    An individual fight between players is not even remotely like a game of chess unless you live in a box and think every PvP encounter in these games goes like "Oh I say Good chap.. lets us duel.. and have a game of it, best 2 out of 3 would seem right?"

    This I said you were being deliberately obtuse, and does seem to be your style, at this point.
     
    Well it's rather an imperfect analogy you used isn't it? Of course I'm not saying that they play out the same way or have the same level of game play. Don't be foolish, try to read between the lines. geez! Just like there is an i win you lose situation in chess there is an i win you lose situation in a pvp match. Plain and simple.

    But it's not an endless running around violence for violence sake grind. You might not get it and no one expects you to, but you are going to have to accept that people enjoy it for exactly what it is.

    Which goes back to the original post, people are making these games because they like them, enjoy them.
    It is Violence for the Sake of it.

    There is no greater goal or purpose in your actions, there is no way for you to win, so your killing and violence is purely for the sake of it. In full loot games, it comes down to you wanting to gain your wealth at the expense of other players, nothing more.

    Let me give you an example. I play a real crappy Arena game, called Eternal Crusade, and they did not cut any corners on what they screwed up, what they screwed up, the screwed up all the way. But what they did right, they did really well.

    The matches are fast.. 20 - 45 min matches.. And they all have a Win Objective. Take a Point, control a point, some are Fortress, some are liner, some are more random.

    Each style of campaign, denotes how I play, what I play, how I engage in the PvP.

    Like when Defending with limited reinforcements, I always play a Healer or Heavy, to limit ticket usage. Equally so, in those in those battles, staying alive matters to me, I will stick close to team mates, and try my best to keep as many around me alive, again, to limit ticket waste. Even how I fight changes, as I will target tactical first, to prevent them from getting close to the point, because only they can cap it. 

    Equally so, when I am attacking with unlimited reinforcements, I will often play Assault, or Fast Attack,and attack Healers first, to cut their ability recover and make their ticket costs higher. Equally so, since they have limited tickets and I do not, I'll gladly suicide, fall on my own grenades, and whatever else just to kill them any way I can. I will do all I can to aid my tactical as well, take the bullets for them and lay down my life for them to survive to take the point.

    Now.. outside some asshole that Tea-bagged me, I am not killing people just to kill them, we are battling to Win the Match. Everything I am doing is focused on winning, not killing other players, the fighting is a byproduct of trying to win, it is not the source of the win.

    That is what separates a PvP Games with a Win Mechanic from a Generic  PvP  without one.
    Gdemami
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:

    But, maybe you are so confused because you never played a game where you could win or lose as a team, so, all you have known is killing for the sake of killing.. does not change what it is.. just means you never knew better PvP.
    My you are a piece of work aren't you?

    Also this "violence for violence sake/sake of killing thing" needs to stop. These games are mostly as violent as a football match.
    Nahh..in a Football game, the "violence" (as it where) is a byproduct of trying to move the ball to the end zone, which is the actual win mechanic. 

    In your PvP games, the Violence in and of itself is the Win Mechanic.

    It is so ingrained in you to see the Violence itself as the Win Mechanic, that you can't even see the "Chess" game to be anything beyond the direct PvP.  That is the most pure form of Violence for the Sake of Violence.

    The diffrence between what you think of as PvP game is the Difference between a Boxing Match, which has a set rule of what it takes to win, like Throwing in the Towel, TKO, KO, Point Win, and Draw (Champion Stays) , where the fighting is a by product of the win mechanic, and all these either PvP games that the PvP  akin to two thugs just having a knife fight in a back ally over each others possessions.

    And....  you have yet been able to show me any other rational way to look at it.. 

    Tell me.. if you want me to stop.. what is the "Other" way to look at it?
    Gdemami
  • TamanousTamanous Member RarePosts: 2,996
    edited February 20
    I'm sure many said it here already: Many of these PvP with loot games are made because they are essentially games without content. They are cheap to make. Make game maps, turn players against each other, done.

    It attracts the mass market crowd already identified as those willing to repeat  nearly identical content over and over and over and ... much like anime lovers. Many indie developers don't innovate, they just follow trends and make games that their budget can handle and hope to profit from the fringes of big developers.

    It's this reason why I am so damn happy SOME indie developers are taking actual risks. Pantheon is going full modernized old school PvE. No MMORPG in over 10 years has attempted this due to the massive undertaking required (I see no Asian mmo as old school ... they follow their own tropes and many even end by turning into a pvp game anyway).

    Camelot Unchained has gone the other direction. They have gone pvp, but recognized how stagnant the pvp mmo market was, and is attempting to take RvR to another level never seen before in the industry. It's not full loot, It's highly PvE in theme when it comes to realm design, economy, crafting, world maps, and city/keep building. It also just happens to have the largest siege battles of any game in history. Nearly everything about it is from an old school perspective. It just happens to be RvR in focus and not PvE.

    I see no difference between AAA genre cloning and mainstreaming or indie companies trying to do the same like dogs searching for scraps. I just look for those taking the extreme risk by innovating ... and ZERO AAA developers are innovating.

    You stay sassy!

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,742
    Ungood said:
    In your PvP games, the Violence in and of itself is the Win Mechanic.
    ...only "violent victory" you may achieve in a video game is a carpal tunnel and that would be still self-inflicted.
    Ungood
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,159
    edited February 20
    MMA, boxing, kickboxing...

    All pointless violence for for the sake of violence I suppose. 
    squibbly
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,206
    edited February 20
    Ungood said:
    It is Violence for the Sake of it.

    And why human monsters like you kill mobs. And loot their corpses for armor and gear. The PvE players are sociopaths who like to hurt the innocent and the defenseless. The mobs cannot beat you. They are weaker by design. If they attack you - this is your fault, you enter in their habitats. All the players like you must be killed by the good PvPers and PKers to save the ecology of the games :)

    MMA, boxing, kickboxing...

    All pointless violence for for the sake of violence I suppose. 
    Do not forget tennis, basketball and football, these balls hurt.
    Ungoodsquibbly
  • TamanousTamanous Member RarePosts: 2,996
    edited February 20
    MMA, boxing, kickboxing...

    All pointless violence for for the sake of violence I suppose. 
    Those aren't pointless. They are social trends when cultures shift from external conflict toward internal peace. It's part of human condition and the removal of peace time conflict sports contributes to internal frustration as well as removing powerful tools that boost social moral.

    Your statement is idealistic, and such doctrines promote division. You complaint put toward combat sports is metrically proven to be the exact opposite.

    Virtue signaling is a social  and cultural poison.
    ChildoftheShadows

    You stay sassy!

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,159
    Tamanous said:
    MMA, boxing, kickboxing...

    All pointless violence for for the sake of violence I suppose. 
    Those aren't pointless. They are social trends when cultures shift from external conflict toward internal peace. It's part of human condition and the removal of peace time conflict sports contributes to internal frustration as well as removing powerful tools that boost social moral.

    Your statement is idealistic, and such doctrines promote division ... the very complaint put toward combat sports which are metrically proven to be the exact opposite of that.

    Virtue signaling is a social  and cultural poison.
    You missed the point of my post.
    Phaserlight
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,356
    annnd for some reason he's banned. Not sure why.
    kitaradsquibbly



  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,206
    If I made an mmo that kept me and the team employed and we enjoyed working on it I would consider it a massive success. This thought process of it not being a success is precisely why you don’t see varying styles of mmo and probably a very good reason why many players  don’t even try a game out to see if they would like it. The most common question before any other when checking out an MMO, “hows the population?”. Then someone proceeds to compare it to WoW instead of the relationship of the population and what makes that particular game enjoyable. 
    That is what most indie devs do. The problem comes when the publisher starts to ask for changes, because he has bigger goals. Then the dev have a good job, but do not have a game anymore.
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 2,947
    Ungood said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:
    I get that you disagree, so, here is your chance.. "Change my mind"
    It's not just a disagreement, you aren't listening.

    One isolated game of chess is like an isolated pvp encounter. 

    An individual fight between players is not even remotely like a game of chess unless you live in a box and think every PvP encounter in these games goes like "Oh I say Good chap.. lets us duel.. and have a game of it, best 2 out of 3 would seem right?"

    This I said you were being deliberately obtuse, and does seem to be your style, at this point.
     
    Yes, that is clearly how Chess is played.


    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 4 tracks in Distance

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,978
    edited February 22
    ikcin said:
    BadSpock said:
    ikcin said:
    BadSpock said:
    It's because PvP is cheap, easy content.


    In fact it is much easier to make PvE content. Much easier. Also the PvP is bad for the developer, as he gets paid for the updates and the development. It is much easier to add a new map, with some 3D elements and cool textures. In the PvP you need much more codding for physics, the triggering, the calculations of in general random events and the balance - something most games never make right. If you think PvP is cheap or easy -  you know nothing about the games.
    Well that's entirely false.

    You miss the point entirely. You also contradict yourself saying on one hand that's it's "easier to add a new map" i.e. PvP but also random events (not in PvP) and balance - something that is equally difficult in both PvE and PvP.

    Perhaps you are forgetting that it's new PvE content that requires new maps, new quests, new enemies, new animations, new behaviors, new triggers, new items and gear, new mechanics, new sound assets, new cinematics, etc. etc. etc.

    I can add a PvP map and change nothing else about the game and players will eat it up.

    Think I could add a new PvE zone with the same mobs, same quests, same bosses, same story, and same cinematics and have players be happy? 

    Content takes time to make. Lots of time. Lots of people.

    Hence, why most if not all indy MMOs are so light on actual developer curated "themepark" content. They instead rely on systems, i.e. sandbox, and "players as content" a.k.a. PvP.
    You never saw a code of a MMORPG, did not you? The new content is the deal both for the publisher and the developer. That is why all love PvE games. Easy to make, and generate work, so income. The same things are much harder if you have to upgrade the PvP. To make even one new class in a PvP game is equal to a new game. 

    When you put players versus players - both generate random events. And that makes the coding incredibly complicated. The AI makes the things easier. So for the developers is always better to make a PvE content. So why they make PvP content? Well probably they like it. But also - there is much bigger market. All dream to reach the LoL and the Fortnite numbers.
    Right... passing scripted AI actions to the PC vs. PC input being passed back/forth to another PC is more complex, sure, but that's mostly your net code. 

    I'm talking about creation of content, son. With PvP, once you have the map and the net code and combat tables etc. it's all just about game performance and the # crunching under the table.

    My point is, once that is done, sure you have balance to tweak - but that's true in PvE too.

    To add new PvE content vs. PvP content, adding something like a new class or whatever is equal work on both sides, everything has to be updated and balanced etc.

    Adding a new map is infinitely easier in PvP because the rest (PvP) is already there.

    Adding new PvE content requires a lot more net-new additions to the game. New models, new animations, new textures, new audio, new scripting, new etc. etc.

    So why then (in your opinion) do most indie MMOs seem to go PvP sandbox?

    Because they are so popular? No.

    If indie devs wanted to make popular games, they wouldn't touch open PvP / FFA sandboxes with a 10 foot pole.

    It's because creating actual curated content takes a lot of very talented people to do, and no matter how much curated content your dev team makes, players will blow through it in hours/days.

    I mean, it probably takes a few days of total time across multiple dev team members to fully create 1 quest that takes a player 10 minutes to complete. When you think about the art assets, the monster pathing/location, the loot table, the quest text, maybe the VO, it has to be tested and re-tested and playtested another 20 times for story/quest flow throughout a zone etc. etc.

    I mean I could go on and on but I really think you just don't get any of this.

    Indie also goes sandbox PvP because there is this notion that it is an underserved market, thus ripe for players... maybe if one actually had passible quality (besides EvE) that would have been true, but the already-small player base can only tolerate so many Darkfalls and Mortal Onlines before they just give up on the genre.


    MaurgrimJean-Luc_PicardcraftseekerUngood
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,159
    BadSpock said:
    ikcin said:
    BadSpock said:
    ikcin said:
    BadSpock said:
    It's because PvP is cheap, easy content.


    In fact it is much easier to make PvE content. Much easier. Also the PvP is bad for the developer, as he gets paid for the updates and the development. It is much easier to add a new map, with some 3D elements and cool textures. In the PvP you need much more codding for physics, the triggering, the calculations of in general random events and the balance - something most games never make right. If you think PvP is cheap or easy -  you know nothing about the games.
    Well that's entirely false.

    You miss the point entirely. You also contradict yourself saying on one hand that's it's "easier to add a new map" i.e. PvP but also random events (not in PvP) and balance - something that is equally difficult in both PvE and PvP.

    Perhaps you are forgetting that it's new PvE content that requires new maps, new quests, new enemies, new animations, new behaviors, new triggers, new items and gear, new mechanics, new sound assets, new cinematics, etc. etc. etc.

    I can add a PvP map and change nothing else about the game and players will eat it up.

    Think I could add a new PvE zone with the same mobs, same quests, same bosses, same story, and same cinematics and have players be happy? 

    Content takes time to make. Lots of time. Lots of people.

    Hence, why most if not all indy MMOs are so light on actual developer curated "themepark" content. They instead rely on systems, i.e. sandbox, and "players as content" a.k.a. PvP.
    You never saw a code of a MMORPG, did not you? The new content is the deal both for the publisher and the developer. That is why all love PvE games. Easy to make, and generate work, so income. The same things are much harder if you have to upgrade the PvP. To make even one new class in a PvP game is equal to a new game. 

    When you put players versus players - both generate random events. And that makes the coding incredibly complicated. The AI makes the things easier. So for the developers is always better to make a PvE content. So why they make PvP content? Well probably they like it. But also - there is much bigger market. All dream to reach the LoL and the Fortnite numbers.
    Right... passing scripted AI actions to the PC vs. PC input being passed back/forth to another PC is more complex, sure, but that's mostly your net code. 

    I'm talking about creation of content, son. With PvP, once you have the map and the net code and combat tables etc. it's all just about game performance and the # crunching under the table.

    My point is, once that is done, sure you have balance to tweak - but that's true in PvE too.

    To add new PvE content vs. PvP content, adding something like a new class or whatever is equal work on both sides, everything has to be updated and balanced etc.

    Adding a new map is infinitely easier in PvP because the rest (PvP) is already there.

    Adding new PvE content requires a lot more net-new additions to the game. New models, new animations, new textures, new audio, new scripting, new etc. etc.

    So why then (in your opinion) do most indie MMOs seem to go PvP sandbox?

    Because they are so popular? No.

    If indie devs wanted to make popular games, they wouldn't touch open PvP / FFA sandboxes with a 10 foot pole.

    It's because created actual curated content takes a lot of very talented people to do, and no matter how much curated content your dev team makes, players will blow through it in hours/days.

    I mean, it probably takes a few days of total time across multiple dev team members to fully create 1 quest that takes a player 10 minutes to complete. When you think about the art assets, the monster pathing/location, the loot table, the quest text, maybe the VO, it has to be tested and re-tested and playtested another 20 times for story/quest flow throughout a zone etc. etc.

    I mean I could go on and on but I really think you just don't get any of this.


    It doesn’t matter which is more difficult honestly it has nothing to do with why. They make what they like, what they know. If you were not a fan of questing would you spend the time creating hundreds of quests? If you didn’t like pvp would you spent countless hours creating pvp for your game? 
    Gdemamicraftseeker
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,356
    BadSpock said:

    If indie devs wanted to make popular games, they wouldn't touch open PvP / FFA sandboxes with a 10 foot pole.




    I don't think they are looking to make popular games. Oh sure, people who make things want others to like them and who wouldn't want to make something that was a critical and commercial darling?

    But actually do things just because they like them and know full well that they aren't going to have large audiences.

    They are making games they want to play. I think some are confused as to the popularity of their chosen game types but you have to believe in what you are doing in order to do it. Can't be half ass.

    Friends of mine played in a new music group (20th century "classical" music) and they never had any illusions that they were going to get anything more than 15 guys in the audience, some of whom dragged their girlfriends with them.





    ikcincraftseeker



  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,206
    BadSpock said:
    So why then (in your opinion) do most indie MMOs seem to go PvP sandbox?



    Now, almost all MMORPG developers do it. Blizzard do not make a new MMORPG, but in fact even they implemented some new PvP features in WoW. This is the trend. As the last trend were the WoW PvE clones. In general the PvP fits better to the idea of MMORPG as free open world where the players decide, instead to follow the scripted path of the solo RPGs. But right now the PvP is the trend for the online games - the new (old) thing. Thanks to LoL and Fortnite. And the MMORPG developers are trying to implement that success into their games.
  • MasoodVoonMasoodVoon Member UncommonPosts: 50
    edited February 23
    So, really... the guy is wrong huh.... let me see...

    Matter of fact, I'll even do you all a favor and go F2P so WoW isn't considered...

    Below are the Top 10 MMORPGs you can play right now for free...

    GW2
    Rift
    SWTOR
    TERA
    LOTRO
    Neverwinter
    DDO
    AION Online
    DC Universe Online
    RUNESCAPE 3

    What do all these have in common?  They are ALL PvE and some have optional PvP content in them.

    Just because the vocal minority on these forums thinks every MMORPG game should be PvP, don't try to spread that B.S. that PvP is more popular than PvE because that simply is not the case.

    Source:  https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/best-free-mmorpgs/11/


    Are you serious? Do you even read the article before you post? It says in the first line "these are our opinion for the best free mmo's" lol. 

    PhaserlightGdemamiJean-Luc_Picard
  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 3,724
    edited February 25
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:
    This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game

    ...attacking people for no other reason than to hurt them, inflicting pain purely to inflict pain, that is in the purest way, violence for the sake of it.

    You don't think that sounds like a Sociopath, to attack someone purely just to hurt them, because it will cause them duress, maybe.. you get the greatest victory of all and drive them from the game?

    You don't see a problem with that set up and design?
    Thats exactly how I play chess though. I’m out to murder the other team just because they are a different color. It’s all about perspective. They are both games that can often be taken way too seriously ;)
    Gdemami

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Palebane said:
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:
    This is my point, See in a game of Chess, there is a point to the conflict, to win the game

    ...attacking people for no other reason than to hurt them, inflicting pain purely to inflict pain, that is in the purest way, violence for the sake of it.

    You don't think that sounds like a Sociopath, to attack someone purely just to hurt them, because it will cause them duress, maybe.. you get the greatest victory of all and drive them from the game?

    You don't see a problem with that set up and design?
    Thats exactly how I play chess though. I’m out to murder the other team just because they are a different color. It’s all about perspective. They are both games that can often be taken way too seriously ;)
    You don't actually play much chess do you?
    While the objective of the game is to "kill the king", that never actually happens. Checkmate is called when it becomes inevitable, and in fact in most games a resignation happens much earlier than that. OK, but what about all the pieces you "kill"? Actually that is not highly regarded, taking pieces for the sake of "killing" them is actually considered bad play. Chess is all about planning, position, and carefullness. 

    The exact reverse of PvP actually.
    Ungoodsquibbly
  • TablixTablix Member UncommonPosts: 41
    edited February 25
    The single feature missing from mmorpg's and especially full loot games is encumbrance.  If players cannot CARRY all of the items on a corpse then even the ganked player has not lost everything.  There was a time when some games tried this, now its a forgotten concept and almost all games rely on loot/bag/ capacity.  Maybe if a developer linked a stat to the ability to carry more storage them players would have a NEGATIVE impact to stats if they wanted the ability to carry off loot from every player they kill. 

    If I am in a full suit of armor, carrying a weapon and then slay another player in similar gear there should be no way for me to carry all of their items AND carry on fighting others.

    In answer to the OP, it comes down to BAD DESIGN, not the fact that a particular feature is BAD> for every problem there is a solution, problem is players dont like restrictions and hence why this kind of system has never been popular.

    If players movement and attack speed was slowed the more they were carrying then they become, in turn, and easier target for someone else.  People will say that players will abuse the system by fighting naked, then that is just yet another problem that will have another reasonable solution.

    Game developers are problem solvers, thats their job.  Just because nobody has yet found a solution for every game, doesnt mean that an individual game cannot find systems that DO work.
    SteelhelmikcinBadSpock
  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 3,724
    edited February 25
    You don't actually play much chess do you?
    While the objective of the game is to "kill the king", that never actually happens. Checkmate is called when it becomes inevitable, and in fact in most games a resignation happens much earlier than that. OK, but what about all the pieces you "kill"? Actually that is not highly regarded, taking pieces for the sake of "killing" them is actually considered bad play. Chess is all about planning, position, and carefullness. 

    The exact reverse of PvP actually.
    When my knight takes your pawn, that is murder. Perspective. To me, the game is about two armies going to war. To you it may be about picking the right stall in a public bathroom, idk.
    Post edited by Palebane on
    GdemamiPhaserlightcraftseekersquibbly

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

Sign In or Register to comment.