It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
What a fallacy this. Sorry to inform you, it isn't 1998 anymore. Playing with honor isn't a thing anymore.Dullahan said:Shaigh said:Make PvP servers for people wishing to be assholes to other people. Keep that shit away from PvE servers.PvP servers are planned, so of course they should have them, but making the pve server a completely safe space is a bad idea. Not only does it make for a less believable environment (because there should be heroes and villains in a fantasy world), but it actually allows the characters playing the jerks within the confine of the rules, to do so without any fear of retaliation.I actually remember early PvP servers in mmos, and having played on both, the general atmosphere on those allowing pvp was always MUCH better than their pve counterparts, contrary to what people think or see today. That was because there were mechanisms to hold players accountable.
We could pretty much deduce your description by the lovely picture you provided.marganculos said:Can some of you guys... please stop calling every MMO "Sandbox"?Let's take a look what sandbox +- is (if you are unable to google it in 5 seconds but you will still argue about it on forum for years...)
A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.
A sandbox game is also known as an open-world or free-roaming game.
Eronakis said:Torval said:I think point 5 will be met with a lot of resistance. The demographics that like strong grouping seem to also favor specific focused roles for characters and classes.Eronakis said:
How well these games do will be a combination of quality design and tempered expectations. If the games aren't built well enough people will fall off. If expectations are too high then the game won't be able to meet them and it will die.
In my opinion the only way to meet Point 5 is if you still have defined roles and class combat mechanics can compliment a more tactical NPC AI system. Giving all classes some form of defense to survive without a healer in the group or if no melee in the group to tank. This can also only work if the trinity gameplay model is redefined. The only aspect of the trinity that needs to be redefined is the tank role because it's core of how you approach combat. Also have to reconsider of omitting the tank & spank model by focusing all on 1 mob or even the current wow model where you aoe everything down with no effort.
The only real way to increase intrigue for a group based PVE heavy game is to have adaptable AI that can pattern detect and have the opportunity to behave differently based of specific variables. That way, each encounter, is different because of the composition of NPC's.
a more tactical NPC AI system
This is what MMO's need, not forced grouping. If the AI is sophisticated enough that voluntary grouping aids in the combat, then you have the best of both worlds, IMO.
Bingo! This guy gets it.linadragon said:See your issue is you think in an "odd" fashion. Unbridled free market capitalism can't actually "exist" without regulatory bodies. With net neutrality it doesn't remove any drive. It doesn't remove innovation or anything (unless you are going to talk about figuring out new ways to drain people's money to offer the same service you are now) The ISPs have stated that net neutrality has not affected their investments or anything at all and they said this to shareholders ie people they are legally obligated to tell the truth to.Horusra said:For me has less to to with political bias and more to do with economic belief. I believe free market capitalism is the driver of innovation. When someone can make some cash people will compete for it. Net Neutrality removes that drive. While without there is, I hope, a desire for companies to provide new and better service than someone else to get your money.
The drive is gone largely because ISPs in most of the US have no actual competition with one another and largely that is because they opt to not try and compete with one another short of some areas that are just to population dense for multiple companies to ignore and that is where they compete.
There isn't an "offering better service than someone else to get your money" when that " someone else" doesn't exist. We'd basically need to actually force a situation that created proper market competition for what you are saying to actually even exist in any way. All net neutrality does is make sure that verzion or comcast can't say slow down a website because that website isn't paying them even though verizon or comcast or any isp already has peering agreements with the ISP carrying that website, that video service, that service in general.
What the isps were doing was throttling services (particularly video) to try and get companies to pay for upgrades to their infrastructure hardware wise and to get direct peering agreements with companies like netflix etc and predatory practices must not be allowed in near monopolistic practices.
For you the type that espouse "free market capitalism" as an answer I say look at real world practices and realize what I said that it can't exist without regulation to be the truth. Unchecked/de-regulated/unbridled free market capitalism would simply lead to a singular entity buying up the smaller entities in any space and us having singular companies for any service (or multiple services in some cases). There is a reason regulations exist and it is because free market capitalism proved that it can't work without it already.
Maybe you could explain to us how the practice of net "NEUTRALITY" is biased?Gorwe said:Not enough unbiased data to really make up my mind.