Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Logical argument why to be continually fun a MMORPG must be PVP based. - simplified
Kriminal99
Member Posts: 377
The point of organizing arguments this way is that if you accept that all premises are true then you CANNOT deny the conclusion (unless the argument is invalid for some reason which would be something obvious and wouldn't be argued about) Therefore the only way to have a valid opinion against the argument is to dispute one of the premises. Please note that the argument starts with every possibility and systematically eliminates other types of fun in the game until the conclusion is reached.
EDIT: DONT POST IN THIS THREAD WITHOUT READING THIS ARGUMENT THAT IS REALLY SELFISH AND IMMATURE
Basic psychological premises nessecary for this argument to be true (will try to link to a phd or something):
1. Punishment (setbacks in this argument) is less severe to a person the more the person understands a reason for the punishment that makes sense and is fair and the less it seems to be just randomly inflicted.
2. Random reinforcement is the most effective way to encourage a behavior.
3. (Not sure how basic this is) Random reinforcement associated with a behavior causes it to be more fun to participate in and that is how it strengthens the behavior.
Premise 1: Players consume or advance through static precreated game content at an average rate of more than 10 times that which it takes the avg compnay to create it. This means that in order to sustain the fun level of a mmorpg just based on single player type static content you would need more than 10x the man hours than it takes the avg company to make a game to begin with. I do not believe this is cost effective, and obviously neither do mmorpg developers as is evidence by their attempted use of tricks to extend game content (ex. a game is 3 years in development, people complain of boredom in 3 months).
Premise 2: Tricks used to slow down players from consuming what content there is or to stretch the content artificially lessen fun to the degree which they are used. Setting a player back randomly is stressful to the player. this stress can be averted by to the degree that the player expected to be setback for the particular action he was taking. However most of the time the player will avoid situation where he would be setback. But IF there is a possibility of rewards that are worth the risk he will take the action anyways. this is gambling (tricks here means time sinks, travel times, huge number of similar levels).
Premise 3: Gambling can slow a person's progress overall without reducing the amount of fun, because at each gamble there can be a chance of LARGE gains for the player to look forward to, there is no extreme stress for the setback if the player expected this possibility, and overall the player still moves at a slower pace.
Premise 4: Gambling where ones skills and knowledge is involved is more fun than pure luck gambling(is it better to earn something or be handed it, lose and be able to get better to increase your chances or just lose and have nothing you can do).
Premise 5: The only entity to date in video games unpredictable enough so that the player will not just assume he can beat it (and therefore dieing to it would be random punsihment) or that he has no chance against it (so he will just avoid it), and can retain this unpredictability through a near infinite amount of interactions, is another player. Also the nature of the pvp can not be to limit the players choice of action to the point where PVP becomes predictable.
Premise 6: The more the person has a chance of gaining the more fun it is to participate in the gamble, but he must be randomly reinforced by winning sometimes.
Premise 7: Since gambling can slow a persons content consumption to any degree (but not stop)without reducing the fun or causing stress signifigantly, it can slow consuption of the games content to the point where Developers could supply more at the rate it is used.
Premise 8: Socialization is seperate from the fun involved due to playing a game. (Any game can have socialization, or someone can talk on the phone while playing a game. If a game gets boring then people will just congregate in one area and talk to each other rather than play the game)
Conclusion: The only possible way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun in the game aspect of a MMORPG is to have a PVP Based MMORPG where players take gambles by choice on their battles between each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preemptive: If you are going to post here against this argument please keep the following things in mind because they have already been said and do not make sense or address the argument:
"I don't like pvp, I was griefed once etc." PVP encompasses a large range of possible interactions, only a few of which you could have experienced. Just because the few you have experienced were bad doesn't mean all would be. For that matter the only difference between PVE and PVP to a player is that in PVE he consistently wins - so if you like PVE there is a example of one right there. (another person designed the mobs to fight you yet let you consistently win)
"Fun is not rooted in logic" This basically says that the entire field of psychology is useless, they could never accomplish anything (which they have) much less perscribe drugs that defeat depression etc. All people have a certain amount in common, random punishment is not fun to anyone and love/respect everyone likes. This argument isn't about what someone answers when you ask them if they are having fun, it is about what that person is actually feeling.
"Everyone has their own opinion why are you trying to force people to like something??" I am trying to make an argument that a certain thing WILL or WOULD be fun to everyone. Not trying to force it to be. Certain things and activities cause certain feelings and reactions in ALL HUMAN BEINGS, this is the whole basis of psychology. Everyone likes to be respected, noone can feel pain as pleasure (maybe after the pain but thats different), etc. Before you make this argument stop and think how many things are dependent on psychological similarities between humans...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Comments
Any way you slice it, fun is not rooted in logic.
Since I do not enjoy PvP, no form of PvP can be fun.
That's not to say you don't make any compelling arguments, but the premise of your subject starts on the wrong foot.
Kriminal
I somewhat agree with your post. I believe, in order for a mmorpg to continue, you must have PvP. Can you imagine DaoC without it? Or what about UO?
I'm not a hardcore PvPer myself, but I cant understand those who hate the idea. Whats the point of running around in a huge world killing computer-AI creatures all the time? Pretty boring if you ask me.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
I don't mean to bash that comment at all, but to me, how can you have fun in a mmorpg at all if you believe that comment you made?
Isn't the single player role-playing games more geared for those who dont like PvP? Whats the point in Multi-player role playing games if you can't fight each other? Show off your armor and swords?
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Sometimes AI-controlled encounters can actually require a little thought and planning. It depends on the encounter. Multiple mobs requiring coordinated action can present a challenge, even more so if the encounter is a timed event. Even if the AI is predictable, the outcome of the encounter isn't, necessarily, if it is sufficiently dangerous to be entertaining at all, but that's part of the fun of a PvE game-- looking for the next big thing, the next thing you haven't done.
I like some PvP, sometimes, but I can easily live without it.
~*~
neschria
Bludgeoner of Bunnies
...
This is where I draw the line: __________________.
I think there should be a new post that says......PvP is a personal opinion and different to everyone...How about we give this thought a rest now
::Yordo::
EQ2, UXO, Lineage 2, KO, Guild Wars, City of Heroes
Notice: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of MMORPG.com or its management.
What do you want me to say: "omg, you're right...I guess I wasn't having any fun in the last 6 years I've been playing Gemstone, UO, EQ, AO, AC, ATITD, and HZ...thanks for pointing that out"
I enjoy socializing. I enjoy character advancement. I enjoy the persistent universes with new content. I enjoy the events. I enjoy the items, the crafting, the adventures, the raiding, the group moments, and the memories. It's the socialization that stands out most.
PvP is just another element in that list, which I do not enjoy however.
ianubisi: Fun is not rooted in logic
Answer: Reasoning with a metaphor- to some people logic is not fun. However the question is can the cause of fun be determined by logic and the answer is yes. Metaphoric reason causes the person to make a connection between two things not related to the argument and attempts to use the feeling of realization to slip in inferior ideas. Same as music with a message which uses the recognition of patterns in the music instead.
ianubisi: Since I do not enjoy PvP, no form can be fun
Answer: weak inductive reasoning. He has experienced one or two bad instances of pvp, but the things which made them bad are not necessary traits to pvp. From these few experiences he generalizes to all pvp. Since there is probably an infinite number of possible types of pvp, generalizing from only a few types is not likely to provide an accurate result. If this argument was based on any other type of reasoning, such as dislike of necessary traits of pvp, then he would state so directly.
neschria: PVE can be unpredictable
Answer: only the first couple of times, which eliminates them for the argument of continual fun.
neschria: I can live without pvp
Answer: you can live without continual fun
Yordo: Pvp is different to everyone and opinion.
Answer: Peoples experiences of pvp to date have been different, and it is not subjective because it is too basic of an interaction. If people who currently dislike pvp experienced one they did like their opinion would change. The only necessary trait of pvp is competition. To say you don't like competition in its best state relevant to you, ie where you have a good cahnce to win is to say you don't like respect. Impossible. Everything you do that might earn you respect is competition because a single person can only respect one person at one instant.
ianubisi: I have fun doing other things in mmorpgs.
Answer: fun does not equal continual fun.
ianubisi: socialization is continually fun
Answer: socialization has nothing to do with a video game other than the fact that it can be done simultaneously. All games can have socialization, even if it doesn't you can talk on the phone while playing. Playing a great game and socializing is more fun than socializing alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
You will, in no way whatsoever, make a valid point if you begin to dismiss the opinions of others as "utterly worthless". In fact, you are going to position yourself into the light of looking ridiculous.
I do not enjoy PvP, in any form whatsoever in a MMOG. I don't care what your reasoning behind it is. There is no form of it I enjoy participating in. Don't like that opinion? I could care less what you think about it. For me, PvP is not fun. End of story.
ianubisi: NUH - UHHH!!!
answer: oh brother...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
You're grossly overthinking this. Fun is not a question of logic. Is that terribly difficult for you to understand? It is emotional. You want to carry on a debate where there is none to have, and it's pointless to try to point that out to you.
Good luck in your life. You're going to make a lot of friends trying to find logic where none exists.
I think its pretty clear that ianubsi is just complaining that someone else is able to figure out things that he can't...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
This is kinda like talking to a sociologist about not fitting into a stereo type, or trying to convince a deeply religious person that there is no god. (no offence to either)
He doesnt understand your arguments, that fun is not a logical thing, its an emotion, and there is no clear cut way to have fun, nor is there a physics equation to calculate fun.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
OLd arguement.
Fact is there are loads of games that cater to people who want PvP and loads of games that cater to those that don't want PvP.
There is no logic to it ,its like taste.You like butter some other dude does not simple as that.
I personally I doubt pvp alone can hold my intrest for long but thats just my TASTE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Yet again, another person trying to impose what they think is fun on those that dont.
Face it, not everyone likes or thinks PvP is fun. Me it dont matter. If the guild I am in does PvP then I am with them. If they do PvE then I am with them. I like PvE more personally, but I also like being with my firends.
If straight PvE is what one desires who is to say he/she is wrong in what they choose? Same goes for those that like nothing but PvP.
"This argument is for a game to be continually fun. Lots of games cater to non pvp players, and lots of games get boring pretty damn fast. PVP was not the only condition provided in my argument for perpetual fun in a mmorpg. Also needed was gambling.... and certain other things could kill the pvp."
What is fun to one person, the other may not see it as fun. Who cares what the reason is to why he/she likes/dislikes PvP. The only thing that should matter is what the individual him/herself likes. You bring up the argument that alot of games cater to the non pvp individual and that they get boreing fast. Like I said, what is fun to one person is not to another. That is what make humans so diverse. Some people either dont want a challenge or just plain dont want to compete with others in that sense.
----------------------------
Omol da'Ox
The Blooded
----------------------------
Omol da'Ox
If you had already read the thread up to this point then you would know that your argument has already been contradicted in a way which absolutely cannot be denied unless you believe one of my premises were not true in which case you could isolate it and say what you disagreed about in it.
The truth is most of the people posting in this thread are acting no better than mindless sheep when it comes to rational thought, and want to come into a rational debate thread and say "ME ME ME ME" and have everyone give them some form of credit....
Ill make logical argument again in the hopes that you will cease to deny what is plain as day right in front of you.
Premise 1 Most people don't know why they do or do not like something
Premise 2 Things that people do not like can often be modified so that people will like them, without changing what that thing is. Obvious example: Fred doesn't like black people.
Premise 3 In order to have a dislike of something such as PVP and everything that PVP could possibly be if changed around, they would have to have been born with it.
Premise 4 People are not born with likes or dislikes of specific objects or ideas and everything they could possibly be without changing their definition. A Newborn baby doesn't even know what things like a sports car or pvp in video games are.
Premise 3 Until a person sees they can like something, or thinks about it rationally as I am, they might and often do simply claim that they do not like it, yet the possibility still exists that it could be changed in a way that they would like it and still be the same thing.
Conclusion Such opinions are utterly worthless
IN OTHER WORDS
You can't possibly know weather you like everything that pvp could possibly be without A) Experiencing all possible instances of it (probably infinite) or
Combining some experience of it with rational thought which is what I am doing
And btw in case you are wondering, Yes I can even explain why people like you come on to forums and bust in to rational debate popping off at the mouth with mindless meetooism. The only reason I am arguing with you instead of just writing you off as no better than animals is because you have the potential to think rationally, you just have no motivation to use it. By repeatedly shoving reality in your face I hope that one day you will realize there is merit to simple logic, and will have made the world a better place.
Yeah you bring up a good point which I forgot to mention in my original argument. If a MMORPG's PVP limits the amount of things a person can do in PVP then that person is not able to retain all of their unpredictability and therefore are not capable of supporting the gambling idea.
AO is a perfect example of this, supposedly there is PVP in that game but pretty much all it is is press q to attack and then maybe choose which items or powers to use...
Anyways to the rest of what you are saying, Yeah I suppose that my argument supports game in which PVP is not fighting with weapons... As long as the gambling is part of the game it could be perpetually fun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
Fun is a funny pickle...
Logic and arguments can't explain away passion and desires. And so fun for one person could be contrary to another. No amount of convincing could sway someone devoted to non-PvP to convert to PvP. Never say never, of course...but head-banging a wall may be less painful.
I wouldn't say this is a 'Logical Argument' at all. This is just simply one person's opnion. Some will argue against it, some will agree with it.
A game doesn't need PvP to survive. The problem is if you are talking free for all PvP well that just leads to alot of greifing. I don't at all mind PvP, as long as it makes some sence. Gettin whacked by some d00d and his buddies just cause they think it's funny isn't my idea of PvP.
No matter what the argument is the truth is plain and simple. Newbies don't like gettin killed by the Pk Griefers. So the newbies get frusterated by this and decide it's not worth ten bucks a month to have 'Joe Roxxor' kill him/her every time they leave a guarded area. So they leave in search of another game. Same goes even for the vetern players, eventually they get sick too of the gankin.
*A game does not rule all other games...espcially if it hasn't been released yet.*
*A game does not rule all other games...espcially if it hasn't been released yet.*
Ok let me just share with yall what a logical argument is in case you have no clue (which is like 90% of people here)
If there is an error in my argument it is that one of my premesises are not true. In a valid deductive argument the conclusion is true if and only if the premises are true. If someone disagrees (and they have a brain) there is a choice of two things they can do that is worth anything at all. That is A) argue with one of the premises or
Come up with a reason why the Conclusion isn't supported by the premises (which people dont usually disagree on).
People who continue to come into this thread, refuse to even read anything in it, and simply make rainbow land statements like logic adn fun don't go together or everyone has their own opinion, statements that make NO sense whatsoever, and the people aren't really even claiming they make sense, are the equivalent of preschool children and honestly their needs to be forums one day that ban such people from rational discussion for the sake of all constructive debate and evolution of ideas.
Grubar ffs for the last time I have proved your statement wrong about 3 different times so far in this thread, if you are not going to read a thread then ffs dont post in it. If you want to argue with the premises of the arguments which prove why it is useful to think about what is fun (which is common sense for most) or the argument which proves why someone cannot dislike everything that pvp is feel free... I think you will find that to be difficult if not impossible, which is probably why you are avoiding doing it.
And btw the way In the end someone like me converts people like that to pvp is when I have the perfect game that is pvp based and it does not make people face random punishment like the ones today do. At that point the game will be very popular, becuase I understood the human mind so well and used logic to get to that point. First they will read about how pvp in such a such game is fun but not like pvp in other games, then they will try it, then they will see it is right and play it.
UOwhatever, That is NOT a nessecary quality of pvp, and if you would have READ THE ARGUMENT you would have known that I am saying means there would never be any unexpected pking or forced pvp where the gamble is not fair.
DO NOT POST IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO EVEN READ THE THREAD
I am here now to discuss with any intelligent people in order to evolve my ideas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
A game needs competition to be interesting. But PKing isn't the only legitimate form of competition out there.
I have no philosophical issue with player killing as a form of competition in a MMORPG. But I have certainly seen how games can be soured by players who use it to grief rather than to play. It makes sense that some online games will experiment with various limitations / variations on the theme of PK in order to handicap or stop it completely, since it's catering to a small percentage of players whose enjoyment comes at the expense of the larger population.
It's not black and white. It's a balancing act that every MMORPG must engage in. I myself prefer some level of direct PvP because it provides some excitement and risk. But I dislike games that become camper / scammer / griefer playgrounds, (which means limits) and I don't begrudge the players who want to seek an alternative after being burned a few times.
Relent, ... yeah in the actual argument at the beginning of this thread all of that is adressed... Ie the setback that is required to slow the consumption of the content would only be accepted mentally if the person expected it ahead of time. Which specifically means stuff like that wouldn't happen.
That doesn't mean rpking is an impossible element of this perfect game, because if rpking happened in certain areas and it was known that could happen there then to enter those areas would be to expect to be randomly attacked. But this point is not argued undeniably in the argument at this time.
Its actually not a balancing act at all to people that understand the human mind... It makes perfect sense.
Furthermore I will say that I once played a game where the gamble was quite fair to participate in pvp, and it was the most fun I ever had playing a video game. And everyone else who played it and participated in pvp said the same. There were things about the pvp which irritated some people, but even these did not stop the games success because obviously noone liked to lose, but everyone enjoyed winning so even the people who whined about it did not leave. And if the game I spoke of was created, then it wouldnt ever irritate people in this fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBABILITY(YOUR STATEMENTS BEING MOTIVATED BY FEAR(I>U)) > .5
This is extremely amusing.
Ok Krimminal99<---what a name for this type of topic!
Let me start by saying that the basis for your whole arguement is ASSUMING that someone enjoys playing any given MMORPG the way you do and has experienced the same things you did.
I will say that trying to base your rationale on logic with your one-sided opinions attached to it will only send your thoughts of creating the 'ideal' MMORPG burning in flames.
Premise 1: The game aspect of any video game (ie not the social aspect) is fun in psychological terms because the player enjoys approaching a point where they will be respected for their accomplishments, although not by any real or specific person.
--->Being respected for their accomplishments is NOT everyone's idea of fun here (that's you opinion). Accomplishing something gives people a feeling of self-worth, that is what drives people to do it again(my opinion and more logical). You are NOT being logical when you believe: A fun game = player accomplishments+being respected(maybe in a MMO, but not games in general)
Premise 2: Upon reaching that point, the sought after respect hardly ever manifests itself in reality for the majority of players. (I E through other real people recognizing the players achievments) At this point the game ceases to be fun.
--->Again this logic is based off your opinion but let's assume your rationale is true. The next logical step would be to try a new type of game at this point. This is clearly where the need of a MMORPG would step in. Your premises for #3 and #4 are irrelavant and hold no bearing on the arguement you are trying to support, they are only restating the points you've made in premise #1.
Premise 5: Players consume or advance through static precreated game content at an average rate of more than 10 times that which it takes to create it. This means that in order to sustain the fun level of a mmorpg just based on single player type static content you would need more than 10x the man hours that a player put into the game. I do not believe this is cost effective, and obviously neither do mmorpg developers as is evidence by their attempted use of cheap tricks to extend game content.
--->Ok first of all THIS is where you should have started this topic. Why you've tried to include any of the other information from above I don't know, like I've said from the get go this logical opinion is based off nothing more than YOUR views on if someone experienced a game/mmorpg the way you did. /endrant
--->Now back to your topic. Time, what time frame are we talking about here? Weeks, months, years? And what are you assuming is the time it takes to create a game? Let's say maybe 3 years? Sounds good? Ok now let's insert it in you little formula: 10 x 3 years = 30 years......no no static content lasting 30 years?!? Oh no that's too long.....how about 1 year.......10 years?!?...damn...hmm. Again LOGICALLY a MMORPG takes a good 2-3 years in development and that's pushing it on my end. Assuming you meant a smaller number which I assumed you did, cost to add new content to a already exisiting game is less than trying to develop PvP content and inserting it into a game. Can you imagine the type of upset that would cause to the balance in the game?
*On average a mmorpg may see 2-3 expansions at $9.99-$19.99(maybe even free in some cases). This alone would balance out any setbacks that may have occured to temperary lack of funds to a company. And logically adding new lands and higher levels as rather than a new PvP engine fully balanced would be more cost effective. Also your average mmorpg only last to a majority of players for about a 6 months to a year then it tapers off.
Premise 6: Following from all before, the only way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun is to have the player encounter setbacks or slow the player down. However to do this at any time when the player did not expect or have control over it is what psychologists call random punishment, and is about as far away from fun as you can get. To give the setback when the player DOES expect it is acceptable but usually just means that the player will avoid doing whatever it is the player will be setback for. The only time when a player will do something which might set him back is when the possible gains are worth the risk. This is gambling.
--->Where did you get your rationale from?!? Are you like a pencil-neck developer who is trying to pitch a new PvP idea to save a dying mmorpg to a bunch of executives or what? No real players enjoy setbacks it is not fun. Try to remember that. At best your statement will sound better if worded like this:
The only way to cost-effectively draw out maximum profits while keeping a player's level of interest high and drawing in new player's, is to introduce a way to add content that will last for the game's lifespan. It must be player controlled with some risks and has the potential for even greater rewards with minimum setbacks.
*If you or anyone for that matter has figured this out, consider yourself a millionare. You need to contact about a dozen developers with your idea.
--->Gambling in the sense of what others will think you are talking about only involves risk to someone's monetary possesions. As soon as it crosses the line of taking away someone's items, stats or anything other than money, then you have lost the arguement to the MASSES. And what are the greedy execs looking for: masses of PAYING customers Also premises #8 and #9 are pretty much what you are saying in premise #6 and require no further mention.
Premise 7: The only entity to date in video games unpredictable enough so that the player will not just assume he can beat it (and therefore dieing to it would be random punsihment) or that he has no chance against it (so he will just avoid it), and can retain this unpredictability through a near infinite amount of interactions, is another player.
--->So true but it has no logical bearing on your point. Let me explain why using another human-player as a means of taking a 'gamble' is illogical for many reasons:
1)Equipment- anyone's guess what the other is using
2)Stats- no way of telling what they may be
3)Buffs- same as #2
4)Class/Job- melee vs magic vs support vs hybrid
5)Balancing issues(PvP vs PvE)- A big factor in SWG and DAOC as well as some other mmorpgs
* To date there are NO gains that out weigh the risks invovled in PvP in any mmorpg UNLESS you are involved the PvP content to begin with:
1)PvP point systems- useless in PvE or to someone who only dabbles in it
2)Money- easier to get it by other means
3)Items- only if you PvP with your same class
In conclusion: This is yet another one-sided topic to argue the point about PvP in a MMORPG that flood these forums. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your atempt to try to break down the logic behind why some people choose to PvP and some don't, is entertaining at best. For when you do get feedback from others that don't share your passion, you quickly put up your defenses and lash out at them for giving their opinions. This is in a since highly illogical when your whole topic is littered with your own opinions and views.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."