Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

191012141529

Comments

  • Hawkaya399Hawkaya399 Member UncommonPosts: 480
    edited February 20
    It's really very simple. If you can't lose anything then where's the risk? It's all about instilling risk in the endeavor. For me, it creates substance in my experience. It makes me feel a part of it.

    I've played a LOT of PvP MMORPGs. My first PvP Multiplayer probably was Tribes or Quake or Quake 2. I played a lot of the ActionQuake mod in 1998. My first PvP in MMORPGs was Rallos Zek in Everquest in 1999.

    You don't have to understand it. Just know that some of us want it in the MMO.

    On the flip side, I persistently don't understand why other players DON'T like PvP, or actively discourage it. I can ATTEMPT to, but my attempts will usually be futile, since I can't share the same feelings. I understand enforced peace and harmony are good things, and relaxing, whilst war, backstabbing, treachery--and other things frequently seen in open PvP-enabled environments--are unfair and even hurtful, but I as yet cannot get myself to LIKE the former with the same passion. It's not the unfairness I like, or the hurt, but the capacity to do both good and evil, freely. I play on the Chaos server in Wurm Online and I can't tell you how many times I'd listen to people in teh chat from the PvE servers who gave me the impression we were two different species. When it's all said and done, I'll simply walk away from chat. Live and let live. We're different.

    One time I was slaying Hill Giants on Sullon Zek (in Everquest). A player with the skeleton illusion visited. I saw the name and panicked. He's a top killer on the server! Moments later, he says in chat, something to the affect of "Don't worry. I'm I won't kill you." So I sat there with him and we chatted. It was like a dudebro moment or something. I'ts just not everyday you meet the highest rated killer and he's chill as you collect thousands of plat. The best part of the story is we never became friends. I never even knew him. He just up and decided he wasn't interested in killing that night. I really can't say how many moments like this happened on Sullon Zek. It wasn't all mindless killing. We made a lot of friends in the process, even as our friends would periodically be murdered alongside us and thousands of plat and some experience are lost. We found meaning in all this apparent unfairness, and longterm fellowship.
    Post edited by Hawkaya399 on
    Steelhelm
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:
    Even in those situations, None of that is a Win Mechanic, that is just a grind, you take a keep, you lose the keep, you kill another player, they kill you, it's no different than a generic PvE grind, but you are killing other players purely for the sake of it. They have not lost, you have not Won, you just endlessly fight each other.

    In a game like say, GW2, they have WvW, at the end of the Week, a Team Wins, and it matters who wins and who loses.

    Just like in sPvP in GW2, you have ranks and tiers, your wins matter, just as do your losses. Each match, there is a drive to win, a reason to fight, it is not violence for the sake of it.

    In a game like say Linage 2, players can just kill each other, there is no meaning to that PvP, it is violence for the sake of violence, no other reason. Players killing each other simply because they can.

    Even in DAoC, you could run around and randomly kill people from other fractions with no rhyme or reason, you are killing purely for the sake of killing, and even then you are not winning the fight, as chances are it was not a duel, it was a gank. They are just annoyed, not bested.

    The only way that someone can legibility win in those kinds of games,  is to drive the other player from the game in frustration.. allow that to process... the only way that anyone can legitimately win in those PvP games,  to drive off the games population.

    And that is why PvP MMO's fail.
    So you are abanoning your Chess analogy?

    'Cause, in chess, I win, you win, I win, you win, a stalemate, you win, I win.

    See a grind.

    DAFKQ? 

    What do think this is, playing some isolated solo game in your moms basement with a friend, where it is just the two of you?.. .. No. This is an MMO, so it's public, and even at the public park with the no life old dudes, you lost, it's time move along loser and let someone else sit down and play.

    In fact, I could use any competitive sport out there, and like an MMO, it's public, not some private little instance with you and your buddies locked in a little circle, no.. you lose the game, you lost, go away, and accept your loss. Using Football, the loser goes to the loser track and faces other losers, the winner goes to the winner trace and faces other winners.. that is how it works.

    Just like GW2, with their PvP Arena games, you moved up and down on the ranks with each win or loss, you didn't just get to sit there and keep going at it again and again.. you win and move up you face new players more in your rank, you lose and move down you face new players, you don't just get to go at it again and again and again.

    That same system was used again in their WvW, where winning and losing moved you up and down in rank.

    Know when that cycle shit happens of facing the same people over and over and over again and becomes a grind.. when the population bottomed out and the game is dead.. that is when that shit happens.

    We understand each other?

    Sovrath said:

    I'm sorry but your last paragraph almost wants me to write "show me where the bad pvp game touched you ..."

    It's cynical and not really fitting except for people who buy into that type of defeatist thinking.
    I never really got into PvP till GW2, with their WvW system. I mean I am not gonna lie, I always thought it was moronic to just run around and kill other players, I played me some DAoC when that launched,  but ended up just dueling other players, I played Hibernia and we were always out numbered, by both Albion and Midguard, so trying to wage war was pointless, but I tried to have fun with it as it were. The duels were a lot of fun to be honest, the test of skill, the challenge, you don't see that in most PvP MMO's, it's all just bullying really.

    Anyway,, got into the WvW on GW2 simply for map completion, because you know.. pointless PvP just seemed Pointless.. but then I saw this idea of winning, the idea that these battles mattered, changed the game for me, it suddenly was important to hold the keep, it mattered that we fought for 3 hours to prevent them from taking it, because we could place second, not 3rd, there was a sense of teamwork, a sense this had meaning, and at the end of week, we got our reward, we moved up (or down) as the case may be.. and we felt pride in our fight.. and waited for our NEW opponents, what would this week bring us.

    Then GW2 had some kind of screw up with their system and we got stuck with the same teams for like 12+ weeks straight and it did not matter who won, or by how much, we were just stuck together, and that totally killed the game mode for me.. took all the purpose out of it. What was the reason to fight if winning or losing didn't matter.

    I have moved on to MOBA's, BR's, and Arena Games, I like MOBA's and Arena games better because there is that gives a greater sense of winning and losing to them, BR's just feel like a grind to be honest.

    So no.. a PvP game never Hurt me, I fact the opposite really.. I have learned to love PvP with a Purpose, and realized when I was stuck in what felt like an endless match up, without that win mechanic.. the once dynamic and fun PVP became pointless violence for the sake of violence.

    The game itself didn't change on me, the keeps and towers, classes, and point system was all the same, but I realize that I was fighting and killing people, just to fight and kill them, their was no reason for this, the points didn't matter, the kills didn't matter, winning and losing didn't matter, because we still be stuck together next week.

    The system was so broken, that we could never win or lose our way out of it, but we at least had the illusion that there was a system where we could win and lose, I cannot fathom how anyone can PvP without even that in place.

    I have since moved on to Arena games (Battle Royals are kind fun, but quickly feel like a grind, as again, winning and losing has no meaning). I am looking into Anthem and their PvP system to see what they have set up, and also Crowfall and Camelot Unchained.

    It's not PvP that is the issue.. it's systems where the PvP is nothing more than Violence for the Sake of Violence that is the issue.
    Gdemamisquibbly
  • kitaradkitarad Member EpicPosts: 5,276
    edited February 20
    In a way Battle Royale and MOBAs do give the players a sense of purpose when they kill other players. There seems to be a reason to kill them and since there is no lasting impact beyond the game  in the sense no one is sitting at your corpse waiting for you to come back so they can kill you again it is in my opinion a better way to PvP. It is more enjoyable and fair and I think this the perfect medium for PvP.

    I feel open world should be more about working together and faction PvP is something that works too like in DAoC. I definitely prefer working together against a common enemy instead of killing another player just because you can. Realm versus Realm is definitely more meaningful than random acts of killing another player for the sake of it.
    Ungood

  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,206
    kitarad said:
    In a way Battle Royale and MOBAs do give the players a sense of purpose when they kill other players. There seems to be a reason to kill them and since there is no lasting impact beyond the game  in the sense no one is sitting at your corpse waiting for you to come back so they can kill you again it is in my opinion a better way to PvP. It is more enjoyable and fair and I think this the perfect medium for PvP.

    I feel open world should be more about working together and faction PvP is something that works too like in DAoC. I definitely prefer working together against a common enemy instead of killing another player just because you can. Realm versus Realm is definitely more meaningful than random acts of killing another player for the sake of it.
    So you think, the players have to be forced into factions and forced to cooperate? First this is not open world design. Factions are kind of instances - they have the same purpose. To limit the competition. I like much more L2 or EVE design - where you choose your friends and enemies. And what is that MMORPG where your corpse stays and you come back? In the most games you are teleported to the nearest town.

    As for LoL - there are consequences if you play ranked. If you do not - actually nobody cares about the win. It is kind of friendly fight - win or lose, does not matter. That makes the players more kind to each other, but the reason is that they simply do not care. And in general BR and MOBAs are like a MMORPG limited in minutes or hours. You actually win the game. If we make analogy to L2 or EVE - that is when one clan or corporation conquer everything.
    Ungood
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,485
    It's really very simple. If you can't lose anything then where's the risk? It's all about instilling risk in the endeavor. For me, it creates substance in my experience. It makes me feel a part of it.



    Ungood said:


    We understand each other?


    @Hawkaya: I get it that you enjoy the risk. I personally don't care about the risk. Or at least, a very specific risk would be more interesting for me. I loved the Lineage 2 sieges. I started playing the game just for those sieges. The risk of losing the castle was important so I get your idea of risk.

    But that's pretty much where it ends for me. I don't care about anything more or less such as losing/looting gear or some such thing. That always felt hollow for me. But maybe that feels hollow for me like open world pvp feels hollow for Ungood ...

    which leads me to Ungood ...

    @Ungood: My statement about chess still stands. I win, you win I win you win. It's the game that is the important thing. What happens before the win or the lose or the draw.

    I sense you just don't appreciate that part. Probably like I don't appreciate winning or losing in a full loot game.

    For me, some of the best pvp matches I've ever had were either "in the world" of Lineage 2 or (believe it or not) in the world of Tera (loved Tera pvp).

    The next runner up would be Warhammer Battlegrounds (or whatever they were called). Never had so much fun other than the above.

    So what does that mean? One game where it's just running around killing people with the possibility of a siege and castle ownership (which was a big deal because you actually kept it for two weeks with all the benefits) one game where it was running around killing each other and one game where it was very specific matches where you were matched on a ladder.

    It seems to me that you appreciate the ladder type of pvp because you get a ranking. But the actual battles aren't really that interesting to you. The idea of kicking out an enemy clan from a leveling area isn't interesting.

    I should add that even though I love sieges (I'd pay $50 a month for just full Lineage 2 sieges) flipping keeps, like in Elder Scrolls Online or Warhammer, were never of interest though fun for a bit. So I suppose that is the risk that Hawkaya mentions.

    I suppose that is what you would call grind. I don't consider it grind.

    Which gets back to the original post, the reason people make full loot pvp games is that they enjoy a particular type of pvp. They don't find it a grind. They enjoy the risk. It doesn't leave them hollow. They don't require or maybe even want a ladder.



  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,952
    Back to the OP. 

    It's pretty clear the goal of many of the indie games is to have player politics and area control. I would give a go in some of these games but they are technical/mechanical mess. 

    They also make design choices I dislike for games like this.  I don't want power gaps or grind EXP, gold or resources.  I also want a large world so the size can keep constant conflict at bay and space to build.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Sovrath said:
    @Ungood: My statement about chess still stands. I win, you win I win you win. It's the game that is the important thing. What happens before the win or the lose or the draw.

    Then you are being deliberately obtuse.

    Gdemami
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    I'm going to say this again. Without a Win Mechanic, PvP is purely violence for the sake of Violence. Nothing more, it is that petty, shallow, and depending on how it rolls out, that level of sociopath. Just killing each other for the sake of killing each other.

    I get that some people don't like that realization, but that is what it is. 

    On top of that, All PvP is to hurt your opponent in some way, anyone that even entertains otherwise is deluding themselves, you are attacking them, you not giving them fucking cupcakes.

    In fact, look at everyone that has tried to mention meaningful PvP, notice, the way that put value on the PvP, is based entirely on how badly they can hurt the other player, often taking pride in how many hours of their play time they can take from them. So the PvP in all these games boils down to players taking pride in being a murderous thieves towards other players.

    I get that none of you thought of it that way.. but can any of you give me a legit other way to look at it ?
    Gdemamisquibbly
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,206
    edited February 20
    Ungood said:
    I'm going to say this again. Without a Win Mechanic, PvP is purely violence for the sake of Violence. Nothing more, it is that petty, shallow, and depending on how it rolls out, that level of sociopath. Just killing each other for the sake of killing each other.

    I get that some people don't like that realization, but that is what it is. 

    On top of that, All PvP is to hurt your opponent in some way, anyone that even entertains otherwise is deluding themselves, you are attacking them, you not giving them fucking cupcakes.

    In fact, look at everyone that has tried to mention meaningful PvP, notice, the way that put value on the PvP, is based entirely on how badly they can hurt the other player, often taking pride in how many hours of their play time they can take from them. So the PvP in all these games boils down to players taking pride in being a murderous thieves towards other players.

    I get that none of you thought of it that way.. but can any of you give me a legit other way to look at it ?
    It is obvious you have no idea what are you talking about. Violence is if I call you names, or something about your mother and etc. This is a verbal violence - not very rare in the MMOs. Violence is if I beat you, abuse you and etc.

    PvP and PvE are not violence, as you are beating pixels. This is just a gameplay. A virtual simulation. Any 1 vs 1 PvP fight is not different from a chess game between two players. As any PvE fight is not different from a chess game between a player and AI (well the AI in the chess will be much better for sure). 

    Even the full loot is not violence, you do it constantly with NPCs. 

    Indeed, the NPCs do not feel bad (who knows, if the AI is good :) ) But even if you play chess, you will feel bad when you lose. This is pretty normal human behavior. And it does not make the chess a violent game.

    So where is the egg? Maybe, but in fact for sure, you have problem with the games. When a player "invests" thousands of USD in his character, including the time he spends - 8-10 hours per day, this is not a hobby anymore. This is addiction. And yes - then every risk and every loss feels like violence. Because the player does not play a game, he lives in a game. But this is his problem, not a game issue.
    Ungoodsquibbly
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,070
    The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer ;)
    UngoodsquibblyAlBQuirky
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming - RAM: 16GB Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Philips 40PUK6809 4K 3D TV - Second display: Philips 273v 27" gaming monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset and Razer Hydra controllers - Soundcard: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,177
    edited February 20
    The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer ;)
    Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play. 

    This thread was answered a long time ago. The real question should be “why complain when small companies try to shake things up and do things differently?”
    Phaserlightsquibbly
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,070
    The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer ;)
    Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play. 

    This thread was answered a long time ago. The real question should be “why complain when small companies try to shake things up and do things differently?”
    Nobody complains, but I personally don't like good ideas wasted and failing because of elements like full loot PvP.
    squibbly
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming - RAM: 16GB Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Philips 40PUK6809 4K 3D TV - Second display: Philips 273v 27" gaming monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset and Razer Hydra controllers - Soundcard: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,177
    The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer ;)
    Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play. 

    This thread was answered a long time ago. The real question should be “why complain when small companies try to shake things up and do things differently?”
    Nobody complains, but I personally don't like good ideas wasted and failing because of elements like full loot PvP.
    That’s complaining. This thread is complaining. They are the devs, they are the ones taking the time and risk to create their dream they are not working for you. It’s not like there isn’t a multitude of non full loot games to choose from. 
    Phaserlightsquibbly
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,485
    Ungood said:
    Sovrath said:
    @Ungood: My statement about chess still stands. I win, you win I win you win. It's the game that is the important thing. What happens before the win or the lose or the draw.

    Then you are being deliberately obtuse.

    No that's not really my style.

    If we play chess and I win and then we play again and you win and we keep on doing that, then that is no different than me meeting you in an mmorpg, having a fight and I'm winning and then we meeting and having a fight and you win, etc, etc.

    What we need to do in order to win is different. But the actual engagement, knowing our class, knowing the other class and what it can and can't do, is the excitement. Just like knowing how to open a game all the way to checkmate (or forcing a stalemate) is the excitement of chess.
    ikcinPhaserlightSteelhelm



  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,070
    edited February 20
    The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer ;)
    Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play. 

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

    There's still no explanation of why all those MMOs miserably fail, though.
    squibbly
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming - RAM: 16GB Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Philips 40PUK6809 4K 3D TV - Second display: Philips 273v 27" gaming monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset and Razer Hydra controllers - Soundcard: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.

  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 2,984
    Ungood said:
    I'm going to say this again. Without a Win Mechanic, PvP is purely violence for the sake of Violence. Nothing more, it is that petty, shallow, and depending on how it rolls out, that level of sociopath. Just killing each other for the sake of killing each other.

    I get that some people don't like that realization, but that is what it is. 

    On top of that, All PvP is to hurt your opponent in some way, anyone that even entertains otherwise is deluding themselves, you are attacking them, you not giving them fucking cupcakes.

    In fact, look at everyone that has tried to mention meaningful PvP, notice, the way that put value on the PvP, is based entirely on how badly they can hurt the other player, often taking pride in how many hours of their play time they can take from them. So the PvP in all these games boils down to players taking pride in being a murderous thieves towards other players.

    I get that none of you thought of it that way.. but can any of you give me a legit other way to look at it ?
    This is a faulty premise, a false dichotomy.

    You are failing to see there are different degrees of winning; I would consider the example I gave upthread a major win, just like claiming victory in a ranked duel is a very minor win.

    It's the same way that winning a game of Chess doesn't mean that you have won Chess for all time.  Seeing things in such black and white terms is silly, here.
    Steelhelm

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

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,952
    The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer ;)
    Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play. 

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

    There's still no explanation of why all those MMOs miserably fail, though.
    They are bad game mechanical, technically and many time make poor choices with gameplay. Do you really think Mortal Online would be successful if it was PvE?  
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,206
    edited February 20

    There's still no explanation of why all those MMOs miserably fail, though.
    And what is that miserably failed MMORPG with full loot made by indie developers. Point the exact game, and we can debate why - maybe it is the loot or maybe not.

    You can say in general the WoW clones fail, the games different from WoW fail, the open world games fail or the instanced games fail - as there are failed games in every one of that criteria.
    Post edited by ikcin on
    Ungood
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:
    Sovrath said:
    @Ungood: My statement about chess still stands. I win, you win I win you win. It's the game that is the important thing. What happens before the win or the lose or the draw.

    Then you are being deliberately obtuse.

    No that's not really my style.

    If we play chess and I win and then we play again and you win and we keep on doing that, then that is no different than me meeting you in an mmorpg, having a fight and I'm winning and then we meeting and having a fight and you win, etc, etc.

    What we need to do in order to win is different. But the actual engagement, knowing our class, knowing the other class and what it can and can't do, is the excitement. Just like knowing how to open a game all the way to checkmate (or forcing a stalemate) is the excitement of chess.
    Again.. You are trying to equate an isolated game of chess to a public domain like an MMO.

    IF we play again. See with a Win Mechanic, a means by which you lose and I win.. the game ends for that moment, and we chose if we want to play again.

    Like a game of chess, the game ends, campaign is over, and a new game starts with the OLD game being done and settled. I won or you Won. No matter what you do in the next game, you do not change or affect the previous games outcome.

    Such does not exist in most (maybe all) in these current PvP MMO's it's just an endless piece trading. These PvP MMO's are like a Chess game with no King and the Pieces re-spawn every round. Killing my toon, or taking a resource node, or taking a control point, is akin to taking a piece on the board, nothing is settled by it, the game does not progress, and you are no closer to winning or losing then when you started. You just took a disposable and replaceable piece on the board, and then I will take something from you that you will than replace next turn and the cycle will keep going till one of us quits.

    Maybe you will cling to some illusion that doing so would hurt me, but your goal is not to win, (because there is no way to do that) it is purely to caused me duress, to inflict pain purely for the sake of it, and you will get a greater feeling on your part the stronger a piece you take because you believe that will hurt me the most. But, again.. there is no way for you to win this game. The only way it ends, is if one of us gets frustrated and goes and plays a different game whit someone else... in this case.. your 'victory' as it where, is a dying and declining player base.

    With a game of chess, there is a win point, each move should put you closer to that victory. Taking pieces and losing pieces matters, because there is a winner and loser in this game.

    No Win Point, makes all of it just doing it for the sake of it. Like grinding PvE content, with no way to Win the MMO, the whole point of the game is done purely for the fun of it.. so.. PvP in those games it done purely for the sociopath fun of killing other players.

    I get that you disagree, so, here is your chance.. "Change my mind"
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,177
    The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer ;)
    Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play. 

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

    There's still no explanation of why all those MMOs miserably fail, though.
    The entire premise of this thread is a complaint about devs making full loot pvp games lol. 
    Steelhelmsquibbly
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,177
    The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer ;)
    Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play. 

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

    There's still no explanation of why all those MMOs miserably fail, though.
    They are bad game mechanical, technically and many time make poor choices with gameplay. Do you really think Mortal Online would be successful if it was PvE?  
    I wouldn’t call it a failure since it’s still running, has a fan base and the company clearly makes money on it. Like someone earlier asked, why is it people think an mmo needs 5m players to be successful?
    ScorchienSteelhelm
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,485
    edited February 20
    Ungood said:
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:
    Sovrath said:
    @Ungood: My statement about chess still stands. I win, you win I win you win. It's the game that is the important thing. What happens before the win or the lose or the draw.

    Then you are being deliberately obtuse.

    No that's not really my style.

    If we play chess and I win and then we play again and you win and we keep on doing that, then that is no different than me meeting you in an mmorpg, having a fight and I'm winning and then we meeting and having a fight and you win, etc, etc.

    What we need to do in order to win is different. But the actual engagement, knowing our class, knowing the other class and what it can and can't do, is the excitement. Just like knowing how to open a game all the way to checkmate (or forcing a stalemate) is the excitement of chess.
    Again.. You are trying to equate an isolated game of chess to a public domain like an MMO.

    IF we play again. See with a Win Mechanic, a means by which you lose and I win.. the game ends for that moment, and we chose if we want to play again.

    Like a game of chess, the game ends, campaign is over, and a new game starts with the OLD game being done and settled. I won or you Won. No matter what you do in the next game, you do not change or affect the previous games outcome.

    Such does not exist in most (maybe all) in these current PvP MMO's it's just an endless piece trading. These PvP MMO's are like a Chess game with no King and the Pieces re-spawn every round. Killing my toon, or taking a resource node, or taking a control point, is akin to taking a piece on the board, nothing is settled by it, the game does not progress, and you are no closer to winning or losing then when you started. You just took a disposable and replaceable piece on the board, and then I will take something from you that you will than replace next turn and the cycle will keep going till one of us quits.

    Maybe you will cling to some illusion that doing so would hurt me, but your goal is not to win, (because there is no way to do that) it is purely to caused me duress, to inflict pain purely for the sake of it, and you will get a greater feeling on your part the stronger a piece you take because you believe that will hurt me the most. But, again.. there is no way for you to win this game. The only way it ends, is if one of us gets frustrated and goes and plays a different game whit someone else... in this case.. your 'victory' as it where, is a dying and declining player base.

    With a game of chess, there is a win point, each move should put you closer to that victory. Taking pieces and losing pieces matters, because there is a winner and loser in this game.

    No Win Point, makes all of it just doing it for the sake of it. Like grinding PvE content, with no way to Win the MMO, the whole point of the game is done purely for the fun of it.. so.. PvP in those games it done purely for the sociopath fun of killing other players.

    I get that you disagree, so, here is your chance.. "Change my mind"
    It's not just a disagreement, you aren't listening.

    One isolated game of chess is like an isolated pvp encounter. The next pvp encounter doesn't affect the previous one.

    But each pvp encounter has it's "game" it's nuance (provided it's not just one of these one shot deals because of level discrepancy.

    I've had that in Tera and a few times In Lineage 2 with higher level players. One fight, I win or they win and then it's over and we can choose to engage each other again when next we meet. This happened a lot.

    What you are not understanding is that the fight, the use of skills, in some cases the terrain is the chess game.

    You are equating the players to the pieces. I am not. I'm saying that a pvp encounter, whether it be a group or solo is the game. And once it's over it can happen again but doesn't affect the previous encounter except what you learn from the previous encounter.

    As far as a taking a control point or a castle well that's game dependent. In Lineage 2 taking a castle was a huge boon to the clan and allies that took it. They could sell seeds and make money, get taxes and have access to special dungeons. At one point fortresses were introduced and they would get money from those. Since money is hard to make and everything was uber expensive it was in high demand.

    Now, in a game where one flips keeps frequently and often, not so much (though there are benefits) but people seem to love it.

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

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

    Scorchien



  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    Sovrath said:
    Ungood said:
    I get that you disagree, so, here is your chance.. "Change my mind"
    It's not just a disagreement, you aren't listening.

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

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

    This I said you were being deliberately obtuse, and does seem to be your style, at this point.
     
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 3,952
    The real question should be: "Why do ONLY indie developers make them ?"... I let you guess the answer ;)
    Large corps go after the money making formula, indies build what they want to play. 

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

    There's still no explanation of why all those MMOs miserably fail, though.
    They are bad game mechanical, technically and many time make poor choices with gameplay. Do you really think Mortal Online would be successful if it was PvE?  
    I wouldn’t call it a failure since it’s still running, has a fan base and the company clearly makes money on it. Like someone earlier asked, why is it people think an mmo needs 5m players to be successful?
    I meant more an overwhelming success.  The notion that PvP is a failure because of low budget ones aren't overwhelming successes.  No low budget MMORPG is an overwhelming success.
  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,978
    ikcin said:
    BadSpock said:
    It's because PvP is cheap, easy content.


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hence, why most if not all indy MMOs are so light on actual developer curated "themepark" content. They instead rely on systems, i.e. sandbox, and "players as content" a.k.a. PvP.
    Steelhelmsquibbly
Sign In or Register to comment.