Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

New Raph Koster game tries to please everyone?

124

Comments

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,777
    I'm still a fan of Raph Koster and I think his approach to this new game is a good one. Like others in this thread, I am worried that the game might turn into a science experiment, but I am also hopeful that he has learnt that lesson from Metaverse.


    On the subject of trying to create an MMORPG for multiple playstyles, I am fully in support of that goal. In fact, I view it as essential for long term success. Why?


    First, humans are fickle! We struggle to concentrate on single tasks for any length of time, our moods change, as do our interests. If a game hopes to retain us for months or years, it needs to provide a variety of activities, otherwise we'll just quit when we inevitably get bored / burned out with the few activities that are there. Providing a bredth of activities will give us something to do and keep us in game for longer.


    Second, diverse communities are the strongest. This is true in real life as well as in mmos. One of the reasons for this (and this is a lesson Raph learned from UO) is that group identity is just as much about what you are opposed to as what you have in common. If you have a common enemy (PvPers) then your group (PvEers) will be stronger. Without that opposition, human beings will inevitably find faults within their own groups, resulting in less cohesion (and thus less retention for the game).


    Third, this is the massively multiplayer genre. The goal is to bring as many people together as possible and get them playing together. This is best facilitated by building a strong community where the members of that community feel comfortable playing together. Focusing on community, building those social bonds, not only makes good business sense but will improve the multiplayer aspect of the game.


    Finally, it just makes good business sense to make a game that can appeal to a very wide range of players. This is obviously based on the assumption that you can actually deliver features that are enjoyable to a wide range of players, which is far from a given. Plenty have tried and failed, but I think Raph managed to get pretty close to this in SWG, so he stands a better chance than most in achieving this goal.




    On the PvP front, I personally won't play an MMO unless it has PvP in it. However, I wouldn't worry about Raph putting in non-consenaul PvP (I also wouldn't play if the pvp was non-consensual). Raph spent years trying to figure out how to make it work in UO and couldn't, which is why SWG had flagging. Raph's already learnt his lesson on FFA PvP, so unless he's somehow figured out some genius way to make it work now, chances are the PvP will always be consensual. It is my hope (given the virtual world design) that the PvP will occur in the open world and not be instanced. So, yeh, im expecting another flagging system of some sort.
    IIRC, Koster argued against flagging for PVP in SWG, and it was installed over his objections.

    IF a game has non-consensual PvP, I won't spend money on it, unless it has some particularly interesting design.  I forked over the money for Crowfall, as I think they've got decent ideas.   Koster has a lot of ideas, but not convinced that his PvP paradigms will work.   We'll see.....
    Actually he was for it.  He debated some of us on the old SWG forums over it.  A lot of PvP were against it because of potential exploitation.
    I remembered him being against it, in his series on SWG development.  But I wasn't there, so I defer to you on it.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • tzervotzervo Member UncommonPosts: 216
    edited June 18
    kitarad said:

    If the PvP community in a game is unable to weather these attacks on the very foundation of their game perhaps they should spend more time learning guerrilla tactics. Get organised and threaten to quit support en masse.  Fight fire with fire and hope everything does not get burnt to a crisp in the process.
    It's not about PVP, it's about difficulty and ego, hence my other examples on raids, difficult open world content etc. PVP just tends to be more challenging (no cap on difficulty, there is always going to be someone better than you) and hurt ego more.

    I agree with the rest of your post.
    Post edited by tzervo on
    GdemamiAlBQuirky
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,777
    kitarad said:
    tzervo said:
    cheyane said:

    Are posters bragging about how good they are? 
    ...
    I readily admit I suck at most games. I am not out to prove something to other people and definitely not in my advancing age  suffering from any delusions about how well I play. I play to have fun in the game and I'm not out to prove anything and I don't need to. I am proud of things I can accomplish with my meagre abilities. I do not need approval to enjoy a game at the level I can manage to play it. 
    That's a very healthy attitude but the problem is not people like you:

    - You have those that go to every OWPVP thread and shitpost the game just because it is OWPVP. They cowardly use those that sincerely do not like confrontation with other players as a shield, but this is not their motive.

    - Then you have those which go to PVP games that keep the two crowds separate but give better rewards to PVP players as a reward for the higher risk they take, and shitpost to those games because they are rewarding players "unfairly".

    - Then you have those that go to all games that have high difficulty PVE content like raids and shitpost these because they encourage "elitistic behaviour". They cowardly use people that sincerely want a more open world experience as a shield, but this is not their motive!

    - Then you have those that go and shitpost in games that have hard open world PVE content or that this content is rewarded better ("GW2 HoT is hard" cries immediately comes to mind).

    All these players want to prove they are good (or more accurately they don't want others to show that they are better) but they cannot. They could just go play a game suited to their taste but no:

    "The neighbour's goat must die."

    Those people don't have any power if the developers aren't swayed by them.

    The thing is developers keep trying to have the cake and eat it too. They want a wider audience for their game and they hold out promises they cannot keep because they have no control over the players. So why do that when you know as a developer you are not going to be able to please both sides.

    Instead you encourage players to play your game and then when those players find they are unhappy with how the game is and complain about it, as a developer fearful of losing your player base you change it.

    Now tell me who is to blame here. I never saw the Dark Souls developers make their game easier. They stuck to the vision they had.

    If you are indeed developing a game for the hardcore PvP crowd then fuck it all and stick to your bloody plan and not change it at the first sign that you're losing your players in a beta. I don't blame the consumer I blame the developer. 

    Don't try to place the blame on the players when developers even right here in this thread try to cater to every type of player and thereby in the end pleasing none.

    As a player who is going to spend their time, money and effort in the game they have every right to try and change things to suit them. It is up to the developer to resist them. Most don't and end up straddling the fence holding out hope to the type of players ill suited to the game. In the end you get a watered down version no one is interested in to play. Case in point is New World.
    With New World, the shock is that the developers were surprised by asshat griefers and gankers.  That goes with the territory. 

    'Our game will be different!'  -  Not unless your game is actually different.  
    AlBQuirkyiixviiiix

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,175
    edited June 18
    With New World, the shock is that the developers were surprised by asshat griefers and gankers.  That goes with the territory. 
    .  
    Brought to you by the same developers who think sword + shield is a type of dual wielding :)
    bcbullyAlBQuirkyOG_Zorvanstrawhat0981Mendel
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • IsilithTehrothIsilithTehroth Member UncommonPosts: 524
    kitarad said:
    I'm still a fan of Raph Koster and I think his approach to this new game is a good one. Like others in this thread, I am worried that the game might turn into a science experiment, but I am also hopeful that he has learnt that lesson from Metaverse.


    On the subject of trying to create an MMORPG for multiple playstyles, I am fully in support of that goal. In fact, I view it as essential for long term success. Why?


    First, humans are fickle! We struggle to concentrate on single tasks for any length of time, our moods change, as do our interests. If a game hopes to retain us for months or years, it needs to provide a variety of activities, otherwise we'll just quit when we inevitably get bored / burned out with the few activities that are there. Providing a bredth of activities will give us something to do and keep us in game for longer.


    Second, diverse communities are the strongest. This is true in real life as well as in mmos. One of the reasons for this (and this is a lesson Raph learned from UO) is that group identity is just as much about what you are opposed to as what you have in common. If you have a common enemy (PvPers) then your group (PvEers) will be stronger. Without that opposition, human beings will inevitably find faults within their own groups, resulting in less cohesion (and thus less retention for the game).


    Third, this is the massively multiplayer genre. The goal is to bring as many people together as possible and get them playing together. This is best facilitated by building a strong community where the members of that community feel comfortable playing together. Focusing on community, building those social bonds, not only makes good business sense but will improve the multiplayer aspect of the game.


    Finally, it just makes good business sense to make a game that can appeal to a very wide range of players. This is obviously based on the assumption that you can actually deliver features that are enjoyable to a wide range of players, which is far from a given. Plenty have tried and failed, but I think Raph managed to get pretty close to this in SWG, so he stands a better chance than most in achieving this goal.




    On the PvP front, I personally won't play an MMO unless it has PvP in it. However, I wouldn't worry about Raph putting in non-consenaul PvP (I also wouldn't play if the pvp was non-consensual). Raph spent years trying to figure out how to make it work in UO and couldn't, which is why SWG had flagging. Raph's already learnt his lesson on FFA PvP, so unless he's somehow figured out some genius way to make it work now, chances are the PvP will always be consensual. It is my hope (given the virtual world design) that the PvP will occur in the open world and not be instanced. So, yeh, im expecting another flagging system of some sort.
    IIRC, Koster argued against flagging for PVP in SWG, and it was installed over his objections.

    IF a game has non-consensual PvP, I won't spend money on it, unless it has some particularly interesting design.  I forked over the money for Crowfall, as I think they've got decent ideas.   Koster has a lot of ideas, but not convinced that his PvP paradigms will work.   We'll see.....
    Actually he was for it.  He debated some of us on the old SWG forums over it.  A lot of PvP were against it because of potential exploitation.
    https://www.raphkoster.com/2015/04/15/star-wars-galaxies-tefs/

    "TEF stands for Temporary Enemy Flagging. We knew when doing a Star Wars game that we needed to be able to account for the scenarios in the movies. This makes for a tricky problem: after all, we saw Luke clearly pick sides, Han only sort of do so at first, both of them ended up wearing Stormtrooper armor to hide, someone like Lando actually switched sides kinda, and all sorts of other ambiguous situations that don’t lend themselves well to a straightforward system where you declared for one side or the other at the start and were done.

    On top of that, we knew that PvP was, well, fatiguing. Given that we were limiting each account to having a single character (for lots of reasons, including PvP, actually),  making players have to pick a side, never change, and be always vulnerable, felt like a big ask. The spirit of the game was all about changing your character up over time, and trying new things, so a system of permanent choice for PvP felt wrong.

    Lastly, something that I think people have forgotten, in these days of DayZ, Rust, and H1Z1, is how much there was a general aversion to PvP. Ultima Online had had a big issue with playerkillers marauding around, and had famously cloned the map and simply made a non-PvP “dimension.” EverQuest was philosophically opposed to it — it was a feature, but really barely present in terms of the game consciousness.

    When we were sharing design thoughts on SWG (something which we did extensively, to a degree that even games today rarely do), I posted up a very clear statement on the forums that runaway PKing was simply not going to be a feature of Galaxies.

    I still believe many things. I still believe that we can find ways to allow players to police their environment. I still believe that this can open up the way to many extremely cool features new to these sorts of games. And I am continuing to work towards having these many features: real battles of territory. Player governments with actual importance and consequence. Player communities that are refined and defined via conflict and struggle so that their battles MEAN something. Real emotions–yes, even including fear and shame, because this is a medium like any other art medium, and its expressive (and impositional!) power is amazing and worthy of exploration. I believe that virtually every player can try PvP and enjoy it, if it is designed correctly, and that it adds great richness to the online gaming experience.

    But I do not want to ever disappoint people in that way again. People will come to SWG for those things, and I do not want them to discover that they cannot stay and enjoy them because the very freedoms which allow those cool, innovative, exciting features, also allow d00dspeaking giggly jerks to dance roughshod jigs on their virtual corpses.

    So am I willing to make compromises in “realism” (a radically overvalued thing in game design, frankly) to make sure that SWG remains someplace where most everybody can feel welcome?

    You betcha.''

    He didn't argue against as you can clearly read his reasoning here.
    Also Starwars in the sense of the game is about conflict...how can there not be pvp. Factions could have worked I think, rebel,empire, mercenary, or factionless.

    MurderHerd

  • Superman0XSuperman0X Member RarePosts: 2,206
    Sigh. You people are so stuck in your ways. You really have to start thinking outside the box. For example; you want non consentual PvP and need to catch some whales for monetization? No problem, let everyone flag their status when they renew their monthly sub... but let those that want to gank pay extra for the privilege via a gank pass. If you are non consentual and get ganked, you get 1/6 of a monthly sub. If you get ganked 6 times, they you have a free months sub. A ganking whale could be subsidizing the monthly sub of hundreds of players.
    AlBQuirkyGdemamiAdamantineBeatnik59Mendel
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,102
    edited June 19
    You can have all the play styles working independantly or cohesively in a world, you just need preventive or punitive mechanics that stop griefing.

    Isn't "griefing" a playstyle?

    "Evereyone" means all, not all but... <insert unwanted playstyle>, including griefers.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,102
    kitarad said:
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to follow the forums of games I have no interest in.
    :raises hand: That's me, too!

    I'll seek a game that more matches what I'm seeking, which is nothing for the past 10+ years :(

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,777
    Sigh. You people are so stuck in your ways. You really have to start thinking outside the box. For example; you want non consentual PvP and need to catch some whales for monetization? No problem, let everyone flag their status when they renew their monthly sub... but let those that want to gank pay extra for the privilege via a gank pass. If you are non consentual and get ganked, you get 1/6 of a monthly sub. If you get ganked 6 times, they you have a free months sub. A ganking whale could be subsidizing the monthly sub of hundreds of players.
    They would too.  Friend of mine worked on a small MMO, and there was a griefer/ganker who had 17 paid subscriptions.  As such, the top brass in the game would never do anything substantive about his behavior.
    tzervoAlBQuirkybcbully

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • MightyUncleanMightyUnclean Member EpicPosts: 3,260
    Sigh. You people are so stuck in your ways. You really have to start thinking outside the box. For example; you want non consentual PvP and need to catch some whales for monetization? No problem, let everyone flag their status when they renew their monthly sub... but let those that want to gank pay extra for the privilege via a gank pass. If you are non consentual and get ganked, you get 1/6 of a monthly sub. If you get ganked 6 times, they you have a free months sub. A ganking whale could be subsidizing the monthly sub of hundreds of players.
    They would too.  Friend of mine worked on a small MMO, and there was a griefer/ganker who had 17 paid subscriptions.  As such, the top brass in the game would never do anything substantive about his behavior.
    I guess they didn't question how many other players they lost because of this guy.
    GdemamiScotOG_ZorvanAlBQuirkytzervobcbully
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,102
    Sigh. You people are so stuck in your ways. You really have to start thinking outside the box. For example; you want non consentual PvP and need to catch some whales for monetization? No problem, let everyone flag their status when they renew their monthly sub... but let those that want to gank pay extra for the privilege via a gank pass. If you are non consentual and get ganked, you get 1/6 of a monthly sub. If you get ganked 6 times, they you have a free months sub. A ganking whale could be subsidizing the monthly sub of hundreds of players.
    They would too.  Friend of mine worked on a small MMO, and there was a griefer/ganker who had 17 paid subscriptions.  As such, the top brass in the game would never do anything substantive about his behavior.
    I guess they didn't question how many other players they lost because of this guy.

    I grudgingly admit that this a good point FOR F2P. Subscriptions always had that stigma about "banning accounts" costing money, so I rarely saw that action happen. F2P more than likely costs nothing to ban accounts.

    Then again, F2P is easy to make accounts, too...

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • Jamar870Jamar870 Member UncommonPosts: 436
    What is "griefing"?  If it's where one player has an extreme advantage over another in a PvP situation, then it's a sick playstyle in IMO.

    bcbully
  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 7,026
    Sigh. You people are so stuck in your ways. You really have to start thinking outside the box. For example; you want non consentual PvP and need to catch some whales for monetization? No problem, let everyone flag their status when they renew their monthly sub... but let those that want to gank pay extra for the privilege via a gank pass. If you are non consentual and get ganked, you get 1/6 of a monthly sub. If you get ganked 6 times, they you have a free months sub. A ganking whale could be subsidizing the monthly sub of hundreds of players.
    They would too.  Friend of mine worked on a small MMO, and there was a griefer/ganker who had 17 paid subscriptions.  As such, the top brass in the game would never do anything substantive about his behavior.
    I guess they didn't question how many other players they lost because of this guy.
    No they don't because they ban him and they lose 17 subscriptions which is clearly visible loss. Hypothetical loss doesn't factor in since they cannot imagine the figure. Creative accounting anyone?
    image
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,777
    cheyane said:
    Sigh. You people are so stuck in your ways. You really have to start thinking outside the box. For example; you want non consentual PvP and need to catch some whales for monetization? No problem, let everyone flag their status when they renew their monthly sub... but let those that want to gank pay extra for the privilege via a gank pass. If you are non consentual and get ganked, you get 1/6 of a monthly sub. If you get ganked 6 times, they you have a free months sub. A ganking whale could be subsidizing the monthly sub of hundreds of players.
    They would too.  Friend of mine worked on a small MMO, and there was a griefer/ganker who had 17 paid subscriptions.  As such, the top brass in the game would never do anything substantive about his behavior.
    I guess they didn't question how many other players they lost because of this guy.
    No they don't because they ban him and they lose 17 subscriptions which is clearly visible loss. Hypothetical loss doesn't factor in since they cannot imagine the figure. Creative accounting anyone?
    I suspect that this was the rationale.  Bird in the hand, so to speak.  He also had a little coterie of asshat friends, so it might have gone on to even more losses.  

    But yeah, he did drive away a  lot of other players.  

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,117
    cheyane said:
    Sigh. You people are so stuck in your ways. You really have to start thinking outside the box. For example; you want non consentual PvP and need to catch some whales for monetization? No problem, let everyone flag their status when they renew their monthly sub... but let those that want to gank pay extra for the privilege via a gank pass. If you are non consentual and get ganked, you get 1/6 of a monthly sub. If you get ganked 6 times, they you have a free months sub. A ganking whale could be subsidizing the monthly sub of hundreds of players.
    They would too.  Friend of mine worked on a small MMO, and there was a griefer/ganker who had 17 paid subscriptions.  As such, the top brass in the game would never do anything substantive about his behavior.
    I guess they didn't question how many other players they lost because of this guy.
    No they don't because they ban him and they lose 17 subscriptions which is clearly visible loss. Hypothetical loss doesn't factor in since they cannot imagine the figure. Creative accounting anyone?
    Something tells me this was a PvP game where you know there was going to be pvp. Probably faction at war. What’s the problem?

    yet and still you concoct some crazy theory as to why you’re getting killed instead of getting better.
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member RarePosts: 2,777
    bcbully said:
    cheyane said:
    Sigh. You people are so stuck in your ways. You really have to start thinking outside the box. For example; you want non consentual PvP and need to catch some whales for monetization? No problem, let everyone flag their status when they renew their monthly sub... but let those that want to gank pay extra for the privilege via a gank pass. If you are non consentual and get ganked, you get 1/6 of a monthly sub. If you get ganked 6 times, they you have a free months sub. A ganking whale could be subsidizing the monthly sub of hundreds of players.
    They would too.  Friend of mine worked on a small MMO, and there was a griefer/ganker who had 17 paid subscriptions.  As such, the top brass in the game would never do anything substantive about his behavior.
    I guess they didn't question how many other players they lost because of this guy.
    No they don't because they ban him and they lose 17 subscriptions which is clearly visible loss. Hypothetical loss doesn't factor in since they cannot imagine the figure. Creative accounting anyone?
    Something tells me this was a PvP game where you know there was going to be pvp. Probably faction at war. What’s the problem?

    yet and still you concoct some crazy theory as to why you’re getting killed instead of getting better.
    Nope.  That particular guy played on both the PvP and the PvE servers.  Because the goal wasn't to PvP, it was to cause trouble.  Which they did.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 6,958
    bcbully said:
    cheyane said:
    Sigh. You people are so stuck in your ways. You really have to start thinking outside the box. For example; you want non consentual PvP and need to catch some whales for monetization? No problem, let everyone flag their status when they renew their monthly sub... but let those that want to gank pay extra for the privilege via a gank pass. If you are non consentual and get ganked, you get 1/6 of a monthly sub. If you get ganked 6 times, they you have a free months sub. A ganking whale could be subsidizing the monthly sub of hundreds of players.
    They would too.  Friend of mine worked on a small MMO, and there was a griefer/ganker who had 17 paid subscriptions.  As such, the top brass in the game would never do anything substantive about his behavior.
    I guess they didn't question how many other players they lost because of this guy.
    No they don't because they ban him and they lose 17 subscriptions which is clearly visible loss. Hypothetical loss doesn't factor in since they cannot imagine the figure. Creative accounting anyone?
    Something tells me this was a PvP game where you know there was going to be pvp. Probably faction at war. What’s the problem?

    yet and still you concoct some crazy theory as to why you’re getting killed instead of getting better.
    When getting better is usually defined by time spent in the game or in some cases, how fat your wallet is, no it is a failed game design. True PvP only works in controlled environments in MMORPGs. The dynamics are completely different than say a MOBA, Battle Royale or FPS.

    Since we are probably talking about an MMORPG, than no, free for all, open world, full loot PvP is destined to fail. Pretty sure every MMO that followed that path is proof of that.
    GdemamiOG_ZorvancheyaneMendel

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,512
    edited June 22
    IDk if it because i am likely older than and played more various games than most of these developers but i could make anything work if given the  freedom to do so.

    Making an idea work though is not as simple as saying "just make it FFA ppv"you ALWAYS need restrictions within ANY design structure>>ALWAYS.
    There is no simple way out,you have to THINK like ALL sides of the fence,can i make this idea work well enough to keep everyone happy.Well if some players are 100% steadfast they want it one  way or nothing,it just proves there is no easy answer.

    I can without putting in more than 20 seconds thought give you an idea how i would think about FFA pvp.
    I would right away say ...ok we need FFA ppv to get everyone on board,how do i implement it so non pvp players are still "acceptable" of the idea?

    You put in penalties and buffs and RISK,so that sure you have a freedom of choice but you are also going to take on a risk.

    This is just the simple basis of my thought process on making it work.Obviously i don't have time and space to sit here and draw up an entire PVP design in a chat room but i most certainly could design it in a way that it works for all.If people still wouldn't accept a design that works for all,np i don't  want selfish gamer's in my game,i want gamer's that THINK about every other player and not just themselves.

    Can this Raph Coster pull off a game design that works for everyone,i would say 95% not likely.If he comes out and says some things that give me a different indication,i can easily change my evaluation of him but he has not done so ..ever.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 7,026
    bcbully said:
    cheyane said:
    Sigh. You people are so stuck in your ways. You really have to start thinking outside the box. For example; you want non consentual PvP and need to catch some whales for monetization? No problem, let everyone flag their status when they renew their monthly sub... but let those that want to gank pay extra for the privilege via a gank pass. If you are non consentual and get ganked, you get 1/6 of a monthly sub. If you get ganked 6 times, they you have a free months sub. A ganking whale could be subsidizing the monthly sub of hundreds of players.
    They would too.  Friend of mine worked on a small MMO, and there was a griefer/ganker who had 17 paid subscriptions.  As such, the top brass in the game would never do anything substantive about his behavior.
    I guess they didn't question how many other players they lost because of this guy.
    No they don't because they ban him and they lose 17 subscriptions which is clearly visible loss. Hypothetical loss doesn't factor in since they cannot imagine the figure. Creative accounting anyone?
    Something tells me this was a PvP game where you know there was going to be pvp. Probably faction at war. What’s the problem?

    yet and still you concoct some crazy theory as to why you’re getting killed instead of getting better.
    I wasn't even playing this game. Did you read the post above it? I wasn't even the one who talked about this game. It was @Arglebargle

    I don't complain when I get killed in PvP games I decide to play. Like Archeage or The Black Desert , well to be fair no one ever bothered me in The Black Desert, I did get killed in Archeage. I was merely growing crops  and trading in those games. I avoided all PvP if I could and mostly managed in Archeage but the true enemy in that game is the energy system not other players. Most players would pass me by even when they could have killed me in Archeage during war time.

    Git gud...git gud the oft repeated mantra has no bearing on one such as me who has no interest in that exercise as far as PvP is concerned. I like BGs like WoW, Warhammer Age of Reckoning, Rift where I can support other players. That is what I do in BGs help others win. I don't kill anyone myself since I have poor reflexes but am an excellent supportive player who can heal , cleanse and do other stuff. I have no interest in actually killing other players but I still play PvP games that have great trading, crafting, housing and other activities I enjoy.

    I am not bothering anyone by complaining about stuff on the forums I merely walk away from games that do not support my gameplay. If that impacts the PvP games, that is not my problem they should have done more to support my interest or at least make sure my interests are not so negatively impacted I have no choice but to walk away.
    tzervobcbully
    image
  • AdamantineAdamantine Member RarePosts: 4,411
    Sigh. You people are so stuck in your ways. You really have to start thinking outside the box. For example; you want non consentual PvP and need to catch some whales for monetization? No problem, let everyone flag their status when they renew their monthly sub... but let those that want to gank pay extra for the privilege via a gank pass. If you are non consentual and get ganked, you get 1/6 of a monthly sub. If you get ganked 6 times, they you have a free months sub. A ganking whale could be subsidizing the monthly sub of hundreds of players.

    Funny, but the math doesnt work out at all.

    You would have the ganker to pay 1/6 of the sub for every ganking, so the game company doesnt make a loss.

    Also, after being ganked six times, is the victim finally immune to ganking for the rest of the month ?

    Please set a sig so I can read your posting even if somebody "agreed" etc with it. Thanks.
  • Beatnik59Beatnik59 Member UncommonPosts: 2,413
    Rhoklaw said:
    Being forced to do something you may not enjoy in order to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's being bad at game design.
    Being forced to PvP to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's being bad at game design.

    Being forced to trade resources and craft to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's bad at game design.  

    Being forced to roleplay to enjoy something else is not being bad at game, it's bad at game design.  

    Being forced to marathon raid to enjoy something else is not being bad at game, it's bad at game design.

    Being forced to join a guild teamspeak server to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's bad at game design.

    Being forced to type in a chatbox to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's bad game design.  

    Being forced to level and loot to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's bad game design.

    We now have games where nobody is "forced" to do anything.  Everything we could ever want is available via lootboxes and cash stores, without having to put up with anything.

    Of course, the downside is that there really isn't much left to do.  All those "niche interests" just took up developer time; why devote resources to create systems?  Such effort should be redirected to churn out DLC until such time as either we get bored with the developer, or the developer gets bored with us and the game gets nuked from orbit.

    MMORPGs, today, are nothing more than cheap single player action/adventure titles played collectively.  I'd go so far as to say that single player action/adventure titles, like GTA V, are actually much better multiplayer online games than MMORPGs are, and that's sad.  The MMORPG concept held so much potential.

    That potential is being realized in games like Minecraft, Rust, and Fortnite better than in MMORPGs.  Perhaps MMORPGs were doomed all along, because those who dreamed like Raph Koster underestimated the willingness of gamers to find the value in things they don't like very much, in order to have the good things other gamers don't like very much.
    AlBQuirkyGdemami

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

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

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

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,102
    edited June 23
    Beatnik59 said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    Being forced to do something you may not enjoy in order to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's being bad at game design.
    Being forced to PvP to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's being bad at game design.

    Being forced to trade resources and craft to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's bad at game design.  

    Being forced to roleplay to enjoy something else is not being bad at game, it's bad at game design.  

    Being forced to marathon raid to enjoy something else is not being bad at game, it's bad at game design.

    Being forced to join a guild teamspeak server to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's bad at game design.

    Being forced to type in a chatbox to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's bad game design.  

    Being forced to level and loot to enjoy something else is not being bad at a game, it's bad game design.

    We now have games where nobody is "forced" to do anything.  Everything we could ever want is available via lootboxes and cash stores, without having to put up with anything.

    Of course, the downside is that there really isn't much left to do.  All those "niche interests" just took up developer time; why devote resources to create systems?  Such effort should be redirected to churn out DLC until such time as either we get bored with the developer, or the developer gets bored with us and the game gets nuked from orbit.

    MMORPGs, today, are nothing more than cheap single player action/adventure titles played collectively.  I'd go so far as to say that single player action/adventure titles, like GTA V, are actually much better multiplayer online games than MMORPGs are, and that's sad.  The MMORPG concept held so much potential.

    That potential is being realized in games like Minecraft, Rust, and Fortnite better than in MMORPGs.  Perhaps MMORPGs were doomed all along, because those who dreamed like Raph Koster underestimated the willingness of gamers to find the value in things they don't like very much, in order to have the good things other gamers don't like very much.

    These are all valid points, but isn't there a difference between "not as fun" and "downright hate?" I "downright Hate" PvP, so asking me to have to PvP for any time will see me never looking into your game. Others "downright hate" crafting, so asking them to have to craft to continue forward could keep them from the game.

    I personally don't look to MMOs or RPGs for my combat experiences. Both genres suck at it, in my opinion. So I "put up with" combat in these games in order to advance my character. That's quite different from "will not do."

    I adore variety in games. I want good and bad times in them. But there is a limit I will put up with :)
    Kyleran

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • madazzmadazz Member RarePosts: 2,036
    I can't respect a person who destroyed a perfect game for more subs despite the game still growing. When he added Trammel he lost all my respect. Nothing he does or says will mean anything until he shows he can back up what he does with a great game. My comments are meaningless to him, as they should be. But I am a consumer of MMORPGs and his will never garner ANY hype. I can't trust that he wouldn't pussify any future game. 
    Kyleran
  • madazzmadazz Member RarePosts: 2,036
    Aethaeryn said:
    He was pretty important in developing systems that people really liked.

    Ultima Online (lead designer)
    EverQuest 2 (creative director)
    SWG (creative director)
    Everquest 2 had a ton of quests, but was otherwise shallow and ran poorly. The "future proof" excuse was BS from the beginning and years later the proof is in the pudding. 

    Ultima Online - Trammel. Don't need to say more.

    SWG - CU or NGE. Don't need to say more.

    I think he needs his original team back in order to do great. Until then, don't hold your breath.


  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,029
    edited July 1
    Whither thou placest the goodies, I will go. I have done many things I didn't want to do in an effort to upgrade my gear. PvP (all kinds). Repetitive raiding (aka farming). Progression raiding. Epic quests. Grinding to master craftsman. I have no shame in the pursuit of shinies!

    For others of you who have self respect and do only things you enjoy, uncompromised by greed, I salute you. I haven't met many folks like you so inclined in game, but I take you at your word that other such people exist.
    AlBQuirky

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

Sign In or Register to comment.