@General-Zod and Slapshot1188 - You guys haven't quoted me at all, so I'm wondering if you read all of my posts, and, if so, which part or sentence in particular do you really have a problem with?
Since you asked though:
I think your opening statement is correct: "Open pvp is only sustainable if there are consequences for behaving like a wolf or a criminal. Not that people shouldn't be able to play villains. In fact, I believe they should be. But it shouldn't be an easy and risk free practice to go around preying on weaklings and noobs."
But you go off the rails with this part: "If real effort isn't put into making pvp fair and competitive, it usually dissolves into some sort of gankfest. "
PvP doesn't have to be "fair" or competitive. That's a sporting event. There are plenty of e-sport like PvP games.
You can in fact have consequences for anti-social behavior all on it's own.
No, PvP doesn't have to be fair or competitive. Nothing has to be anything. But I do think that if I can't kill anyone with one hit in a game, then it's nothing like real life. The words games and sports are actually synonymous. I don't want to play a sport that isn't fair and competitive, so I don't want to play a game that isn't fair and competitive. Are you really cool with someone being able to destroy you just because they've played longer than you, more hours than you, or paid more money than you?
Of course, there are also zergs or just simply outnumbering someone in order to kill them. That is something that can happen in real life. But in a world with any kind of political and military structure, kingdoms or nations would have scouting parties, patrols, and rangers wandering the roads and wilderness at times. They might become alarmed if an army or group of bandits was causing trouble in their territory. People might even report their existence to a nearby garrison of soldiers. There are other dangers out in the wilderness as well, such as, perhaps, roaming wolf packs or warbands of demi-humans who might be drawn by the sound of battle.
No... actually games and sports are not synonymous but to your greater point:
Those players that are stronger than I am set the goal for me to reach to. It gives a purpose to the character development journey. Right now in DAOC my main character is 48/50. He is outclassed by those who hit the level cap (50) and have geared themselves through various means. That gap is what drives me to continually get better and more powerful. In an RPG I want to watch my character get better and I want the success and failures to be dictated as much as possible by their characteristics.
As for 1 shot kills... I have nothing against the concept and would look at a game that implemented it. Honestly though, I think the ultimate FFA PvP setting would involve permanent-death or some very, very significant penalties for dying.
c. 1200, from Old English gamen "joy, fun; game, amusement," common Germanic (cognates: Old Frisian game "joy, glee," Old Norse gaman "game, sport; pleasure, amusement," Old Saxon gaman, Old High German gaman "sport, merriment," Danish gamen, Swedish gamman "merriment"), said to be identical with Gothic gaman "participation, communion," from Proto-Germanic *ga- collective prefix + *mann "person," giving a sense of "people together."
The -en was lost perhaps through being mistaken for a suffix. Meaning "contest for success or superiority played according to rules" is first attested c. 1200 (of athletic contests, chess, backgammon). Especially "the sport of hunting, fishing, hawking, or fowling" (c. 1300), thus "wild animals caught for sport" (c. 1300), which is the game in fair game (see under fair (adj.)), also gamey. Meaning "number of points required to win a game" is from 1830. Game plan is 1941, from U.S. football; game show first attested 1961.
early 15c., "pleasant pastime," shortening of disport "activity that offers amusement or relaxation; entertainment, fun" (c. 1300), also "a pastime or game; flirtation; pleasure taken in such activity" (late 14c.), from Anglo-French disport, Old French desport, deport "pleasure, enjoyment, delight; solace, consolation; favor, privilege," related to desporter, deporter "to divert, amuse, please, play" (see sport (v.)).
Original sense preserved in phrases such as in sport "in jest" (mid-15c.). Meaning "game involving physical exercise" first recorded 1520s. Sense of "stylish man" is from 1861, American English, probably because they lived by gambling and betting on races. Meaning "good fellow" is attested from 1881 (as in be a sport, 1913). Sport as a familiar form of address to a man is from 1935, Australian English. The sport of kings was originally (1660s) war-making. Other, lost senses of Middle English disport were "consolation, solace; a source of comfort."
Basically game and sport technically mean the same thing. They are simply English words derived from different languages. The idea that a sport involves physical exercise, but a game doesn't is certainly not true 100% of the time. Baseball matches are more usually referred to as games in American English. Chess is one of the first pvp games in existence, and it has rules to make it fair and competitive.
I wouldn't mind the possibility of permanent death in a game that wasn't based on stats, level and/or gear progression. And I certainly want penalties for dying. Death is meaningless if it doesn't hurt.
Progressionin real life is often tied to the progression to the progression of the family/community/tribe/clan/nation to which a person belongs and the perpetuation of the family line.* Why can't we make a game that mirrors the type of progression people often seek or have sought in the real world?
*There are other types of progression a person might consider valuable, such as spiritual or metaphysical, but we can leave those out of games.
Ifyou like the stat, gear, and level chasing hamster wheel grind, knock yourself out. I am personally totally sick to death of it.
@General-Zod and Slapshot1188 - You guys haven't quoted me at all, so I'm wondering if you read all of my posts, and, if so, which part or sentence in particular do you really have a problem with?
Since you asked though:
I think your opening statement is correct: "Open pvp is only sustainable if there are consequences for behaving like a wolf or a criminal. Not that people shouldn't be able to play villains. In fact, I believe they should be. But it shouldn't be an easy and risk free practice to go around preying on weaklings and noobs."
But you go off the rails with this part: "If real effort isn't put into making pvp fair and competitive, it usually dissolves into some sort of gankfest. "
PvP doesn't have to be "fair" or competitive. That's a sporting event. There are plenty of e-sport like PvP games.
You can in fact have consequences for anti-social behavior all on it's own.
No, PvP doesn't have to be fair or competitive. Nothing has to be anything. But I do think that if I can't kill anyone with one hit in a game, then it's nothing like real life. The words games and sports are actually synonymous. I don't want to play a sport that isn't fair and competitive, so I don't want to play a game that isn't fair and competitive. Are you really cool with someone being able to destroy you just because they've played longer than you, more hours than you, or paid more money than you?
Of course, there are also zergs or just simply outnumbering someone in order to kill them. That is something that can happen in real life. But in a world with any kind of political and military structure, kingdoms or nations would have scouting parties, patrols, and rangers wandering the roads and wilderness at times. They might become alarmed if an army or group of bandits was causing trouble in their territory. People might even report their existence to a nearby garrison of soldiers. There are other dangers out in the wilderness as well, such as, perhaps, roaming wolf packs or warbands of demi-humans who might be drawn by the sound of battle.
No... actually games and sports are not synonymous but to your greater point:
Those players that are stronger than I am set the goal for me to reach to. It gives a purpose to the character development journey. Right now in DAOC my main character is 48/50. He is outclassed by those who hit the level cap (50) and have geared themselves through various means. That gap is what drives me to continually get better and more powerful. In an RPG I want to watch my character get better and I want the success and failures to be dictated as much as possible by their characteristics.
As for 1 shot kills... I have nothing against the concept and would look at a game that implemented it. Honestly though, I think the ultimate FFA PvP setting would involve permanent-death or some very, very significant penalties for dying.
c. 1200, from Old English gamen "joy, fun; game, amusement," common Germanic (cognates: Old Frisian game "joy, glee," Old Norse gaman "game, sport; pleasure, amusement," Old Saxon gaman, Old High German gaman "sport, merriment," Danish gamen, Swedish gamman "merriment"), said to be identical with Gothic gaman "participation, communion," from Proto-Germanic *ga- collective prefix + *mann "person," giving a sense of "people together."
The -en was lost perhaps through being
mistaken for a suffix. Meaning "contest for success or superiority
played according to rules" is first attested c. 1200 (of athletic
contests, chess, backgammon). Especially "the sport of hunting, fishing,
hawking, or fowling" (c. 1300), thus "wild animals caught for sport"
(c. 1300), which is the game in fair game (see under fair (adj.)), also gamey. Meaning "number of points required to win a game" is from 1830. Game plan is 1941, from U.S. football; game show first attested 1961.
early 15c., "pleasant pastime," shortening of disport
"activity that offers amusement or relaxation; entertainment, fun" (c.
1300), also "a pastime or game; flirtation; pleasure taken in such
activity" (late 14c.), from Anglo-French disport, Old French desport, deport "pleasure, enjoyment, delight; solace, consolation; favor, privilege," related to desporter, deporter "to divert, amuse, please, play" (see sport (v.)).
Original sense preserved in phrases such as in sport
"in jest" (mid-15c.). Meaning "game involving physical exercise" first
recorded 1520s. Sense of "stylish man" is from 1861, American English,
probably because they lived by gambling and betting on races. Meaning
"good fellow" is attested from 1881 (as in be a sport, 1913). Sport as a familiar form of address to a man is from 1935, Australian English. The sport of kings was originally (1660s) war-making. Other, lost senses of Middle English disport were "consolation, solace; a source of comfort."
Basically game and sport technically mean the same thing. They are simply English words derived from different languages. The idea that a sport involves physical exercise, but a game doesn't is certainly not true 100% of the time. Baseball matches are more usually referred to as games in American English. Chess is one of the first pvp games in existence, and it certainly has rules to make it fair and competitive.
I think the ultimate FFA PvP setting would involve permanent-death or some very, very significant penalties for dying.
And would you still feel the same after getting mowed down by a zerg and having to start from scratch?
I don't know as I've never played a PvP game like that. My guess is that there would be less random killing and much more socialization.
My guess is if there was perma death there would be even more zergs because less likely to die when in a group?
There are ways for AI mobs to deal with zergs, which I addressed in a previous post. Of course, it would suck to be the one or ones that the zerg slaughtered before being dealt with by AI soldiers, etc..
carebears and their constant crying have ruined the gaming industry...companys keep trying to please them and they make their games like crap which is why there hasnt been a good mmo in a decade plus...lineage 2 and UO only 2 good pvp games to come out ever the rest were sad and pathetic and everyone who trys to claim that talk like " oh i like to pvp in a open world but we need to penalize people who kill me when im being a sissy" seriously stop trying to talk pvp i doubt anyone here has ever expierenced real gaming competition
For whatever reason the site wont save an edit to my above post so:
* But having checked the thesaurus I see that Game IS in fact listed as a synonym for sport.
No worries. I understand where you're coming from though. You don't mind if you have to put a lot of time and effort into becoming competitive in a pvp game. Me, I'd rather be able to compete as soon as I log into the game. Or at least within a few days or weeks as opposed to months or years (depending on how many hours a person is able to devote to any particular game - some people do have to work or go to school for example.) I really don't like the idea that there are gods roaming around in the world who can crush me like an ant. That's more of a nightmare than fun.
carebears and their constant crying have ruined the gaming industry...companys keep trying to please them and they make their games like crap which is why there hasnt been a good mmo in a decade plus...lineage 2 and UO only 2 good pvp games to come out ever the rest were sad and pathetic and everyone who trys to claim that talk like " oh i like to pvp in a open world but we need to penalize people who kill me when im being a sissy" seriously stop trying to talk pvp i doubt anyone here has ever expierenced real gaming competition
It's not the gamers, it's the developers who try to cater to any and all in order to try to make more money that have caused, or at least did cause, a decade long (or more) stagnation of mmorpgs.
And don't tell me what to do. You have no idea what I have or have not experienced.
I would like to play in a game world that is logical and realistic. A game world where people can commit crimes without fear of reprisal or punishment (or of any meaningful consequence whatsoever) is not realistic. If your dream is really to live in a totally chaotic world where there is no law, I don't know what to say.
For whatever reason the site wont save an edit to my above post so:
* But having checked the thesaurus I see that Game IS in fact listed as a synonym for sport.
No worries. I understand where you're coming from though. You don't mind if you have to put a lot of time and effort into becoming competitive in a pvp game. Me, I'd rather be able to compete as soon asI log into the game. Or at least within a few days or weeks as opposed to months or years (depending on how many hours a person is able to devote to any particular game - some people do have to work or go to school for example.) I really don't like the idea that there are gods roaming around in the world who can crush me like an ant. That's more of a nightmare than fun.
To me, I go and play a game designed for competitive sport-like play if I want such a game as you describe. I have had tons of fun in games like Battlefield or LoL.
But to me, the whole point of an RPG as opposed to simply an MMO is the development of the character.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Open pvp is only sustainable if there are
consequences for behaving like a wolf or a criminal. Not that people
shouldn't be able to play villains. In fact, I believe they should be.
But it shouldn't be an easy and risk free practice to go around preying
on weaklings and noobs. If real effort isn't put into making pvp fair
and competitive, it usually dissolves into some sort of gankfest. Pvp
in real life may not be fair, but most mmorpgs are far from any realistic
simulation of real life. And if combat in pvp was really supposed to be
like real life, my character could kill anyone else's character with
one well-placed hit. And that character would stay dead. I could hide an archer up some tree or in the window of an abandoned building and snipe passer-byes all day long.
A villain usually has better things to do then going around waylaying random people, like seeking some kind of ultimate power, plotting world domination, overthrowing a kingdom, or seeking revenge against a hated foe.
The kind of people that like to rob and/or kill for pleasure, profit, or no reason at all are usually described as thugs, gangsters, serial killers, or psychopaths. There are laws and police in place to attempt to restrain the activities of such people. People should be allowed to behave like that if they want to in a game, as villains often need minions to do their dirty work. But the way pvp is implemented in most games, the kind of criminal, predatory behavior often associated with bullies is not only usually without meaningful consequence, but even encouraged and rewarded.
Until games are actually some kind of logical and realistic representation of life, I believe pvp should be considered more of a sport than anything else. Sports have rules in order to attempt to make them fair. People still try to cheat, and sometimes succeed in doing so without getting caught, but few to none would want to play them or watch them if there were no rules at all. I don't think anyone would find a game between Major League baseball players and Little Leaguers to be interesting, unless, perhaps, they are sadistic in some way.
EDIT: Unless it is in self-defense, in the line of duty for a police officer (except in cases where the perpetrator is unarmed or not fighting back), or occurs during legal warfare, killing people is generally considered a crime. I do believe games should reflect this principle. But, "oh, come on, it's just a game", someone may say? That may very well be, but if that's a person's attitude, he or she (usually he) shouldn't expect me or most other reasonable people to want to participate in the psychotic, predatory fantasies of the gankers.
I will have to admit that "Open PvP" unless it is the selling point of the game, can kill the attraction of a game. While most Carebear players are more then willing to kill another player, (I have seen this and even lead the charge, many times in WvW in GW2), in fact, PvP, can be a fun addition to a game, if handled right, but carebear players want PvP to be on their terms, they want to know what they are walking into. getting ganked while crafting, or selling, simply put, sucks balls.
To those that like that game style. Rock on.. but.. rock on.. on your own.
For whatever reason the site wont save an edit to my above post so:
* But having checked the thesaurus I see that Game IS in fact listed as a synonym for sport.
No worries. I understand where you're coming from though. You don't mind if you have to put a lot of time and effort into becoming competitive in a pvp game. Me, I'd rather be able to compete as soon asI log into the game. Or at least within a few days or weeks as opposed to months or years (depending on how many hours a person is able to devote to any particular game - some people do have to work or go to school for example.) I really don't like the idea that there are gods roaming around in the world who can crush me like an ant. That's more of a nightmare than fun.
To me, I go and play a game designed for competitive sport-like play if I want such a game as you describe. I have had tons of fun in games like Battlefield or LoL.
But to me, the whole point of an RPG as opposed to simply an MMO is the development of the character.
Well, that's the point of most MMORPGs as they are currently made. But even in pencil-and-paper Dungeons & Dragons (first released in 1974), upon which most of these games are based, the whole point was actually being able to experience what it was like to live to in a fantasy world (in D&D's case, similar to that of Tolkien's novels). The player role-played by talking and acting how his or her character would talk or act according to said character's history and personality. Most importantly, the character could effect and even change the game world based on his or her words or deeds. All the stats, equipment, adventures, dungeons and campaigns were just a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves.
consequences for behaving like a wolf or a criminal. Not that people
shouldn't be able to play villains. In fact, I believe they should be.
But it shouldn't be an easy and risk free practice to go around preying
on weaklings and noobs. If real effort isn't put into making pvp fair
and competitive, it usually dissolves into some sort of gankfest. Pvp
in real life may not be fair, but most mmorpgs are far from any realistic
simulation of real life. And if combat in pvp was really supposed to be
like real life, my character could kill anyone else's character with
one well-placed hit. And that character would stay dead. I could hide an archer up some tree or in the window of an abandoned building and snipe passer-byes all day long.
A villain usually has better things to do then going around waylaying random people, like seeking some kind of ultimate power, plotting world domination, overthrowing a kingdom, or seeking revenge against a hated foe.
The kind of people that like to rob and/or kill for pleasure, profit, or no reason at all are usually described as thugs, gangsters, serial killers, or psychopaths. There are laws and police in place to attempt to restrain the activities of such people. People should be allowed to behave like that if they want to in a game, as villains often need minions to do their dirty work. But the way pvp is implemented in most games, the kind of criminal, predatory behavior often associated with bullies is not only usually without meaningful consequence, but even encouraged and rewarded.
Until games are actually some kind of logical and realistic representation of life, I believe pvp should be considered more of a sport than anything else. Sports have rules in order to attempt to make them fair. People still try to cheat, and sometimes succeed in doing so without getting caught, but few to none would want to play them or watch them if there were no rules at all. I don't think anyone would find a game between Major League baseball players and Little Leaguers to be interesting, unless, perhaps, they are sadistic in some way.
EDIT: Unless it is in self-defense, in the line of duty for a police officer (except in cases where the perpetrator is unarmed or not fighting back), or occurs during legal warfare, killing people is generally considered a crime. I do believe games should reflect this principle. But, "oh, come on, it's just a game", someone may say? That may very well be, but if that's a person's attitude, he or she (usually he) shouldn't expect me or most other reasonable people to want to participate in the psychotic, predatory fantasies of the gankers.
I'll check that out. I have heard of it before. Problem is, I'm just not really interested in a game set in ancient China. If it was set in Feudal Japan, I would totally play it.
I will have to admit that "Open PvP" unless it is the selling point of the game, can kill the attraction of a game. While most Carebear players are more then willing to kill another player, (I have seen this and even lead the charge, many times in WvW in GW2), in fact, PvP, can be a fun addition to a game, if handled right, but carebear players want PvP to be on their terms, they want to know what they are walking into. getting ganked while crafting, or selling, simply put, sucks balls.
To those that like that game style. Rock on.. but.. rock on.. on your own.
It's not for everyone, but if done right, I do believe that a truly fair and competitive open world PvP system would enable the creation of an mmorpg that was actually a true role-playing game. And it would make every other mmorpg in existence seem like child's play.
Yeah, I'm just not really into ancient China. Don't get me wrong, I watched my fair share of movies in that setting, but I'm just far more interested in settings based on Medieval Europe or Feudal Japan. Ancient China just doesn't excite me. And I'd really rather just post on this forum than play another mmorpg where I have to climb the hamster wheel grind ladder to the top. Plus I hate cash shops.
@General-Zod and Slapshot1188 - You guys haven't quoted me at all, so I'm wondering if you read all of my posts, and, if so, which part or sentence in particular do you really have a problem with?
I dont have a problem with you having an opinion about the type of game you want, thus I haven't quoted or responded to you.
I have a problem with people who want to make ridiculous statement about the mental health of PvP players. I simply think it's the pot calling the kettle black.
Since you asked though:
I think your opening statement is correct: "Open pvp is only sustainable if there are consequences for behaving like a wolf or a criminal. Not that people shouldn't be able to play villains. In fact, I believe they should be. But it shouldn't be an easy and risk free practice to go around preying on weaklings and noobs."
But you go off the rails with this part: "If real effort isn't put into making pvp fair and competitive, it usually dissolves into some sort of gankfest. "
PvP doesn't have to be "fair" or competitive. That's a sporting event. There are plenty of e-sport like PvP games.
You can in fact have consequences for anti-social behavior all on it's own.
"real" open world pvp players do not want to pvp, they want to gank, gank alot. With advantages such as gear or multiple people against one. There is no wonder open world pvp games are not as popular as others.
This 100% PVPer's also are always trying to sell their BS about this not being a problem. Open world PVP games will never be popular. I bet most people would be ok with pvp if they could only be attacked by someone of the same lvl But this never happens.
I think the ultimate FFA PvP setting would involve permanent-death or some very, very significant penalties for dying.
And would you still feel the same after getting mowed down by a zerg and having to start from scratch?
I don't know as I've never played a PvP game like that. My guess is that there would be less random killing and much more socialization.
My guess is if there was perma death there would be even more zergs because less likely to die when in a group?
Valid guess... but mine is that people would be forced to actually engage and negotiate to avoid the penalty of dying.
Hope to be able to test that some day.
Guys the game is called Salem: The Crafting MMO.
Not only could a player kill you permanently but could also destroy all of your house/buildings thus completely wiping you from the game as if you never existed. The only safe area was the starter city which you could not build on so if you had anything to call your own it could be raided/destroyed.
I will have to admit that "Open PvP" unless it is the selling point of the game, can kill the attraction of a game. While most Carebear players are more then willing to kill another player, (I have seen this and even lead the charge, many times in WvW in GW2), in fact, PvP, can be a fun addition to a game, if handled right, but carebear players want PvP to be on their terms, they want to know what they are walking into. getting ganked while crafting, or selling, simply put, sucks balls.
To those that like that game style. Rock on.. but.. rock on.. on your own.
It's not for everyone, but if done right, I do believe that a truly fair and competitive open world PvP system would enable the creation of an mmorpg that was actually a true role-playing game. And it would make every other mmorpg in existence seem like child's play.
Before this can be claimed, we would first need to define what is "Truly fair and Competitive"... i am sure if we asked 100 gamers to define this, we would get all kinds of answers, and some being very much at odd with each other.
"real" open world pvp players do not want to pvp, they want to gank, gank alot. With advantages such as gear or multiple people against one. There is no wonder open world pvp games are not as popular as others.
This 100% PVPer's also are always trying to sell their BS about this not being a problem. Open world PVP games will never be popular. I bet most people would be ok with pvp if they could only be attacked by someone of the same lvl But this never happens.
Open PvP games will never be as popular as games that build co-op play, simply because Co-Op play (Often PvE, or some kind of Structured PvP) draws people into the game, to work together and share in the rewards, were Open-PvP, is simply is an environment where the stronger players prey upon the weaker til they are driven out.
You know how unpopular games like UO, Mortal online, darkfall are?
Developers don't make much mmorpg like that.
Now a mmorpg where people can freely gank people but have reprocusion or penalty is even more unpopular in my opinion. Interesting idea but I don't know if any developer will make a pvp focused game like that.
"real" open world pvp players do not want to pvp, they want to gank, gank alot. With advantages such as gear or multiple people against one. There is no wonder open world pvp games are not as popular as others.
This 100% PVPer's also are always trying to sell their BS about this not being a problem. Open world PVP games will never be popular. I bet most people would be ok with pvp if they could only be attacked by someone of the same lvl But this never happens.
If you don't apply any and all advantages within a game, then it's safe to say that you suck at playing that game.
People who suck at a game usually don't like playing it.
That's fine, some people prefer a game that allows them to wander out clueless, in search of opportunities to smash keys and be mesmerized by pixels.
I'm sure that you look up the best rotation for your WoW character, or how to beat that raid boss, or what gear you should use, or the fastest way to level, or where to get that quest - but when the strategy and tactics of an open world PvP game most always involve playing with a good guild or a good group of friends, it's reduced to a bunch of gankers who don't even like to PvP.
To say that someone beat you with an advantage.. wtf? Think about what you're saying.
They are not talking about someone playing a slight edge, or simply having an optimal build of equal level, and facing off, What they are saying is that, in Open-World PvP games, players won't attack you, unless they vastly overpower you with either far superior gear, levels, and abilities, or in pure numbers, in the same context as 100th level character running a level 20 dungeon, or 3 people ganging up on one.
@General-Zod - By gankers, I mean those who aren't really looking for a challenge in PvP and just want to prey on weaklings and noobs. Or people that will repeatedly kill the same player-character for no reason other than that they're there.
Well, that's the point of most MMORPGs as they are currently made. But even in pencil-and-paper Dungeons & Dragons (first released in 1974), upon which most of these games are based, the whole point was actually being able to experience what it was like to live to in a fantasy world (in D&D's case, similar to that of Tolkien's novels). The player role-played by talking and acting how his or her character would talk or act according to said character's history and personality. Most importantly, the character could effect and even change the game world based on his or her words or deeds. All the stats, equipment, adventures, dungeons and campaigns were just a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves.
Oh I dunno about that... when my Paladin got his Holy Avenger Sword it was kind of a big deal. Even in pen and paper I loved collecting stuff. I loved seeing my character develop...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Comments
The -en was lost perhaps through being mistaken for a suffix. Meaning "contest for success or superiority played according to rules" is first attested c. 1200 (of athletic contests, chess, backgammon). Especially "the sport of hunting, fishing, hawking, or fowling" (c. 1300), thus "wild animals caught for sport" (c. 1300), which is the game in fair game (see under fair (adj.)), also gamey. Meaning "number of points required to win a game" is from 1830. Game plan is 1941, from U.S. football; game show first attested 1961.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=game
Original sense preserved in phrases such as in sport "in jest" (mid-15c.). Meaning "game involving physical exercise" first recorded 1520s. Sense of "stylish man" is from 1861, American English, probably because they lived by gambling and betting on races. Meaning "good fellow" is attested from 1881 (as in be a sport, 1913). Sport as a familiar form of address to a man is from 1935, Australian English. The sport of kings was originally (1660s) war-making. Other, lost senses of Middle English disport were "consolation, solace; a source of comfort."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=sport
Basically game and sport technically mean the same thing. They are simply English words derived from different languages. The idea that a sport involves physical exercise, but a game doesn't is certainly not true 100% of the time. Baseball matches are more usually referred to as games in American English. Chess is one of the first pvp games in existence, and it has rules to make it fair and competitive.
Progressionin real life is often tied to the progression to the progression of the family/community/tribe/clan/nation to which a person belongs and the perpetuation of the family line.* Why can't we make a game that mirrors the type of progression people often seek or have sought in the real world?
*There are other types of progression a person might consider valuable, such as spiritual or metaphysical, but we can leave those out of games.
Ifyou like the stat, gear, and level chasing hamster wheel grind, knock yourself out. I am personally totally sick to death of it.
(This was too long to fit in one post)
http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-game-and-sport
But as I said.. we should move on from that.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
There are ways for AI mobs to deal with zergs, which I addressed in a previous post. Of course, it would suck to be the one or ones that the zerg slaughtered before being dealt with by AI soldiers, etc..
* But having checked the thesaurus I see that Game IS in fact listed as a synonym for sport.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
No worries. I understand where you're coming from though. You don't mind if you have to put a lot of time and effort into becoming competitive in a pvp game. Me, I'd rather be able to compete as soon as I log into the game. Or at least within a few days or weeks as opposed to months or years (depending on how many hours a person is able to devote to any particular game - some people do have to work or go to school for example.) I really don't like the idea that there are gods roaming around in the world who can crush me like an ant. That's more of a nightmare than fun.
It's not the gamers, it's the developers who try to cater to any and all in order to try to make more money that have caused, or at least did cause, a decade long (or more) stagnation of mmorpgs.
And don't tell me what to do. You have no idea what I have or have not experienced.
I would like to play in a game world that is logical and realistic. A game world where people can commit crimes without fear of reprisal or punishment (or of any meaningful consequence whatsoever) is not realistic. If your dream is really to live in a totally chaotic world where there is no law, I don't know what to say.
To me, I go and play a game designed for competitive sport-like play if I want such a game as you describe. I have had tons of fun in games like Battlefield or LoL.
But to me, the whole point of an RPG as opposed to simply an MMO is the development of the character.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Never forget Wushu! Bounties, jail, prison, beheading, jail breaks, prison escapes, constables (player bounty hunters) repentance! Absolutely brilliant risk reward systems.
To those that like that game style. Rock on.. but.. rock on.. on your own.
Well, that's the point of most MMORPGs as they are currently made. But even in pencil-and-paper Dungeons & Dragons (first released in 1974), upon which most of these games are based, the whole point was actually being able to experience what it was like to live to in a fantasy world (in D&D's case, similar to that of Tolkien's novels). The player role-played by talking and acting how his or her character would talk or act according to said character's history and personality. Most importantly, the character could effect and even change the game world based on his or her words or deeds. All the stats, equipment, adventures, dungeons and campaigns were just a means to an end, not the end in and of themselves.
I'll check that out. I have heard of it before. Problem is, I'm just not really interested in a game set in ancient China. If it was set in Feudal Japan, I would totally play it.
It's not for everyone, but if done right, I do believe that a truly fair and competitive open world PvP system would enable the creation of an mmorpg that was actually a true role-playing game. And it would make every other mmorpg in existence seem like child's play.
Yeah, I'm just not really into ancient China. Don't get me wrong, I watched my fair share of movies in that setting, but I'm just far more interested in settings based on Medieval Europe or Feudal Japan. Ancient China just doesn't excite me. And I'd really rather just post on this forum than play another mmorpg where I have to climb the hamster wheel grind ladder to the top. Plus I hate cash shops.
cantankerousmage ,
I largely agree with
Slapshot1188.
Your thread was doing just fine until the :edit...
This 100%
PVPer's also are always trying to sell their BS about this not being a problem. Open world PVP games will never be popular. I bet most people would be ok with pvp if they could only be attacked by someone of the same lvl But this never happens.
Guys the game is called Salem: The Crafting MMO.
Not only could a player kill you permanently but could also destroy all of your house/buildings thus completely wiping you from the game as if you never existed. The only safe area was the starter city which you could not build on so if you had anything to call your own it could be raided/destroyed.
Would you attempt a game like this
Asheram ?
Before this can be claimed, we would first need to define what is "Truly fair and Competitive"... i am sure if we asked 100 gamers to define this, we would get all kinds of answers, and some being very much at odd with each other.
And therein lies the problem.
Open PvP games will never be as popular as games that build co-op play, simply because Co-Op play (Often PvE, or some kind of Structured PvP) draws people into the game, to work together and share in the rewards, were Open-PvP, is simply is an environment where the stronger players prey upon the weaker til they are driven out.
Developers don't make much mmorpg like that.
Now a mmorpg where people can freely gank people but have reprocusion or penalty is even more unpopular in my opinion. Interesting idea but I don't know if any developer will make a pvp focused game like that.
They are not talking about someone playing a slight edge, or simply having an optimal build of equal level, and facing off, What they are saying is that, in Open-World PvP games, players won't attack you, unless they vastly overpower you with either far superior gear, levels, and abilities, or in pure numbers, in the same context as 100th level character running a level 20 dungeon, or 3 people ganging up on one.
Oh I dunno about that... when my Paladin got his Holy Avenger Sword it was kind of a big deal. Even in pen and paper I loved collecting stuff. I loved seeing my character develop...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018