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 EpicPosts: 3,198
    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.
    [Deleted User]AlBQuirkybcbully

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

  • MightyUncleanMightyUnclean Member EpicPosts: 3,531
    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.
    GdemamiScot[Deleted User]AlBQuirky[Deleted User]bcbully
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 7,387
    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: 563
    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 LegendaryPosts: 8,663
    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?
    Chamber of Chains
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member EpicPosts: 3,198
    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: 11,818
    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.
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • ArglebargleArglebargle Member EpicPosts: 3,198
    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.

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    edited June 2020
    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 LegendaryPosts: 8,663
    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.
    [Deleted User]bcbully
    Chamber of Chains
  • AdamantineAdamantine Member RarePosts: 4,848
    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 ?

  • 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: 7,387
    edited June 2020
    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: 2,078
    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: 2,078
    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: 7,630
    edited July 2020
    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

  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 2,256
    I don't want to play a game where player killers come back right away after they get hunt down without any kind of punishment that make them think twice before doing PK .
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    iixviiiix said:
    I don't want to play a game where player killers come back right away after they get hunt down without any kind of punishment that make them think twice before doing PK .
    There is NO WAY to properly balance or implement pvp.No matter what some players will not like the open end or the risk or the penalties or the restrictions,always someone will be unhappy.
    So as the dev you try to use common sense,not think about any one individual's needs but think of what works fair right across the board.

    So many will even complain if the game treats death like a death.Example if they design it so when you die you cannot do anything for 15 minutes,people would cry foul.If you allow them to spawn back quickly full health,again people will complain..TOO EASY no risk.

    Pvp is just such a bad idea for games,it NEVER creates a realistic environment it just creates a system where players are flagged to pvp and nothing more.

    Death and TIME are the two mechanics you can NEVER do realistically,IMPOSSIBLE.So with those two mechanics you need to create systems ,penalties,rule sets just to make them work plausibly.

    AlBQuirkyiixviiiix

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

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,195
    Wizardry said:
    iixviiiix said:
    I don't want to play a game where player killers come back right away after they get hunt down without any kind of punishment that make them think twice before doing PK .
    There is NO WAY to properly balance or implement pvp.No matter what some players will not like the open end or the risk or the penalties or the restrictions,always someone will be unhappy.
    So as the dev you try to use common sense,not think about any one individual's needs but think of what works fair right across the board.

    So many will even complain if the game treats death like a death.Example if they design it so when you die you cannot do anything for 15 minutes,people would cry foul.If you allow them to spawn back quickly full health,again people will complain..TOO EASY no risk.

    Pvp is just such a bad idea for games,it NEVER creates a realistic environment it just creates a system where players are flagged to pvp and nothing more.

    Death and TIME are the two mechanics you can NEVER do realistically,IMPOSSIBLE.So with those two mechanics you need to create systems ,penalties,rule sets just to make them work plausibly.

    PVE is the same way.  

    The best PVP stopper is time and space. The bigger the world the less likely you are to run into killers. More effort to find you. The more effort it takes to return if they die. You tie in time like prison and remote friend respawni locations for PvP you'll at least knock them out of commission to enjoy a play session.

Sign In or Register to comment.