WAR Community Event - Why was no one from here there?

[sinij]

I think likely than not f13 did not get invited simply because WAR is not looking for critical review at this point, rather drooling fanboism that would unlikely come out of f13.

[Yegolev]

I like how the new guy handles his language.

[tazelbain]

Well, we know more about PvP in War than AoC which is supposedly releasing soon.

[schild]

To be fair, Funcom is a terribly private company when it comes to functionality vs many of the other MMOG companies.

[Merusk]

I'm not sure what you mean.

I dislike instancing and restricted or lacking pvp because they conflict with the openness of social interaction.  They move the game in the direction of a single player moreso than a multiplayer game.  Together, they limit interaction, and prevent you from solving disputes when they do arise; you either have to yield to the game, the GMs, or do nothing.  I'm usually very uninterested in the pve aspect of mmos, but very interested in the economy and politics.  So I favor things which enhance the economy and politics, and put more freedom and potential into the players' hands.

Well and good, but the reality of creating content means that a game with popularity will have one of a few things.  1)  Instances to spread-out the players as they reach the cap. 2) A 6-7 year development so they can create enough content to spread-out the players at the cap. 3) A horrible fucking grind that takes a year or more for the demi-hardcore to get through, which will striate the playerbase enough that the small amount of cap content created won't matter, since it'll take years for the majority of the playerbase to get there.  4) "It's all player-driven!" something like Eve.  They throw the tools at you, put in a few half-assed PvE money faucets and the rest is all PvP.

I never camped in guk (was this name used in a different game or something?), sorry, and it wasn't that common of a place at the time I played.  I've camped various overcrowded things, which I assume was your point.  The only times it bothered me was when I had no means to resolve the issue, due to pvp restrictions.  If I hadn't enjoyed it though, I wouldn't have played.  I would not have played EQ if profitable zones were instanced, and I would not have played EQ on a blue server.  To be honest, I don't really know much about UO, except that you could cut down trees or something.  That sounds neat.

Lower Guk was THE ONLY place to get gear and xp once you hit ~48 in the original EQ.  You were playing at a time where there were options.  Sure there were prime places and those were overcrowded, that's a far cry from the same experience.   In the pre-kunark days, you'd login, stand at the zone entrance and shout that you'd like to be placed on the list for whatever spawn.  Whoever was in charge of the list would write your name down, often send you a tell saying what spot you were in the line for your role.  (Obviously mezzers and healers got in quicker, since there were fewer folks playing those classes)

You then got to sit there for your play session until your name was called.   There was no logging-on to play an alt, because the listholders usually wouldn't bother with you if you did that.  So instead, you stood there or just outside the zone waiting.  Sometimes it'd go quick because some of the people ahead of you logged, sometimes you'd just sit there your entire play session.  I recall several of my friends being "on the list" for 3-4 hours at a time before they just gave-up and logged for the night. 

That worked when EQ and UO were the ONLY games around - and even then not so much.  EQ got really hot AFTER that bullshit started to go away and the content was spread-out a lot more.  These days you may as well just put up the bankrupcy sign if you try that again, because people won't stand for it.  We're paying money to play the game, there'd better be content there for me to play instead of telling me to just wait around until it's my turn for fun.

So again, no, the people who want 'forced grouping' and 'non instanced everything' DON'T usually remember that horrible suckfest, but instead are referring to some later point of EQ's history when there was more content.  The Veloius-Luclin era you remember so fondly was nearly 3 years later, which is ~6 years after EQ first started dev.

Your UO-L2 reference is invalid because even thoug L2 had "open" pvp, it still favored the non-pvper.  Now, I'm going to be faulty on some of this because I didn't play UO and only briefly played L2 but I've read enough to realize the differences.   There's enough UO folks here to correct me if I misspeak, however.

Only "Red names" drop their equipment in L2 if I recall right.  In UO people figured out it was MUCH better to just let someone else do all the work of finding equipment, mining, getting reagents, then kill them and take it from them.   Players were the phat looz.  You could killl anyone and fully loot them and all their equipment.  If you got really lucky, then they were a dumbass and had their house key on them and you'd be able to take all that as well.

Small difference in the two systems, yeah?  Which is why I say people who pine for the system usually weren't actually there.  They imagine something more like L2, or Shadowbane or the other 'open' pvp systems that have come out, or the later times when houses and other stuff could be locked-down.  They don't REALLY imagine the UO system and the ability to lose EVERYTHING you've got because you got PK'd.

[tmp]

Also, even though some of the areas weren't completely done, people who say the game looks like ass are crazy. And wrong... really wrong.

I'm neutral about WAR but looks-wise it's rather... meh. Part of it could be the scale -- they made bad decision and apparently oversized environments where other games tends to reduce the scale. This is not to say reduced scale is much better option, but the huge areas are likely to bite WAR on the ass, come real game... you can see glimpse of it in their preview movies, when the designer showing things off after few minutes has to use dev speed hack just to get anywhere in reasonable time. Moving at regular speeds it can get very tedious very quick.

[Nebu]

Lower Guk was THE ONLY place to get gear and xp once you hit ~48 in the original EQ.  You were playing at a time where there were options.  Sure there were prime places and those were overcrowded, that's a far cry from the same experience.   In the pre-kunark days, you'd login, stand at the zone entrance and shout that you'd like to be placed on the list for whatever spawn.  Whoever was in charge of the list would write your name down, often send you a tell saying what spot you were in the line for your role.  (Obviously mezzers and healers got in quicker, since there were fewer folks playing those classes)

You then got to sit there for your play session until your name was called.   There was no logging-on to play an alt, because the listholders usually wouldn't bother with you if you did that.  So instead, you stood there or just outside the zone waiting.  Sometimes it'd go quick because some of the people ahead of you logged, sometimes you'd just sit there your entire play session.  I recall several of my friends being "on the list" for 3-4 hours at a time before they just gave-up and logged for the night. 

That worked when EQ and UO were the ONLY games around - and even then not so much.  EQ got really hot AFTER that bullshit started to go away and the content was spread-out a lot more.  These days you may as well just put up the bankrupcy sign if you try that again, because people won't stand for it.  We're paying money to play the game, there'd better be content there for me to play instead of telling me to just wait around until it's my turn for fun.

So again, no, the people who want 'forced grouping' and 'non instanced everything' DON'T usually remember that horrible suckfest, but instead are referring to some later point of EQ's history when there was more content.  The Veloius-Luclin era you remember so fondly was nearly 3 years later, which is ~6 years after EQ first started dev.

The horror of those days... I even remember a friend and I rerolling a cleric and enchanter early on as that way we could build our own groups to farm Guk and eventually Karnor's when Kunark came out.  As I've stated in other threads, it amazes me what EQ was able to get away with so early on.   Camping spawns for 24+ hrs to get a quest drop... can you even imagine a mechanic like that in today's games?  I get pissed if I have to kill more than 15 or so mobs to get 10 drops.  Some evolution in gaming is for the best no matter how much we romanticize the past. 

[Montague]

Lower Guk was THE ONLY place to get gear and xp once you hit ~48 in the original EQ.  You were playing at a time where there were options.  Sure there were prime places and those were overcrowded, that's a far cry from the same experience.   In the pre-kunark days, you'd login, stand at the zone entrance and shout that you'd like to be placed on the list for whatever spawn.  Whoever was in charge of the list would write your name down, often send you a tell saying what spot you were in the line for your role.  (Obviously mezzers and healers got in quicker, since there were fewer folks playing those classes)

You then got to sit there for your play session until your name was called.   There was no logging-on to play an alt, because the listholders usually wouldn't bother with you if you did that.  So instead, you stood there or just outside the zone waiting.  Sometimes it'd go quick because some of the people ahead of you logged, sometimes you'd just sit there your entire play session.  I recall several of my friends being "on the list" for 3-4 hours at a time before they just gave-up and logged for the night. 

That worked when EQ and UO were the ONLY games around - and even then not so much.  EQ got really hot AFTER that bullshit started to go away and the content was spread-out a lot more.  These days you may as well just put up the bankrupcy sign if you try that again, because people won't stand for it.  We're paying money to play the game, there'd better be content there for me to play instead of telling me to just wait around until it's my turn for fun.

So again, no, the people who want 'forced grouping' and 'non instanced everything' DON'T usually remember that horrible suckfest, but instead are referring to some later point of EQ's history when there was more content.  The Veloius-Luclin era you remember so fondly was nearly 3 years later, which is ~6 years after EQ first started dev.

The horror of those days... I even remember a friend and I rerolling a cleric and enchanter early on as that way we could build our own groups to farm Guk and eventually Karnor's when Kunark came out.  As I've stated in other threads, it amazes me what EQ was able to get away with so early on.   Camping spawns for 24+ hrs to get a quest drop... can you even imagine a mechanic like that in today's games?  I get pissed if I have to kill more than 15 or so mobs to get 10 drops.  Some evolution in gaming is for the best no matter how much we romanticize the past. 

I think what most players fondly remember about EQ was the community. Because you had to group to get anywhere and because you had to conform to social conventions for spawn camps there was a lot less general asshattery than today in WoW for example. Yeah sitting at a spawn camp all day sucked but if you had the time you could kick back, watch TV and BS with the other nerds there and at the end of the day you got a shiny and most likely a bunch of new friends. Contrast that with WoW where there is a bunch of anti-social tardery because you don't need anyone to help you level and get passable gear and it's no wonder there are people that remember EQ fondly.

[qedetc]

Well and good, but the reality of creating content means that a game with popularity will have one of a few things.  1)  Instances to spread-out the players as they reach the cap. 2) A 6-7 year development so they can create enough content to spread-out the players at the cap. 3) A horrible fucking grind that takes a year or more for the demi-hardcore to get through, which will striate the playerbase enough that the small amount of cap content created won't matter, since it'll take years for the majority of the playerbase to get there.  4) "It's all player-driven!" something like Eve.  They throw the tools at you, put in a few half-assed PvE money faucets and the rest is all PvP.

You're speculating that the majority of mmorpg players or people likely to play an mmorpg are more inclined to want those things.  That could be entirely true, but that doesn't nearly mean that any fun game must have those qualities or even that any of those qualities actually make a game better.  It's possible that people prefer things that make the game less fun in the long run because the personal aspect of a good thing is more noticably negative.  Perhaps people just have different tastes.  For example, I don't want players spread out; I want conflict over resources, one of which is exp.  In early L2, some clans locked out Cruma Tower.  I think that was a good thing, even if it would have prevented me from exping there when there weren't any good alternatives.  I really don't want players spread out in the end game.  The only reason I've ever even advanced to the end game is because that is where you have to be to participate in server politics or have any meaningful impact on the economy.  The more spread out people are, the less conflict and politics, and the easier it is for everyone to get everything they want.  I don't want people to get everything they want.  I don't want everything I want.  When everyone has everything they want, I don't want to play the game any more.  My earlier argument was that 4 is better attained through restricting space and loosening restrictions on pvp.

Lower Guk was THE ONLY place to get gear and xp once you hit ~48 in the original EQ.  You were playing at a time where there were options.  Sure there were prime places and those were overcrowded, that's a far cry from the same experience.   In the pre-kunark days, you'd login, stand at the zone entrance and shout that you'd like to be placed on the list for whatever spawn.  Whoever was in charge of the list would write your name down, often send you a tell saying what spot you were in the line for your role.  (Obviously mezzers and healers got in quicker, since there were fewer folks playing those classes)

There was still waiting for groups in some places when I played.  You're right, not that bad, though sometimes it had been longer than an hour.  There was waiting for groups and camping spots in L2.  I think this should primarily be handled by clans and pvp.  I think there should be alternative places, but that they should suck.  I don't want everyone to be happy.  I understand that might not seem like a good business slogan, but I feel it makes a richer game.

So again, no, the people who want 'forced grouping' and 'non instanced everything' DON'T usually remember that horrible suckfest, but instead are referring to some later point of EQ's history when there was more content.  The Veloius-Luclin era you remember so fondly was nearly 3 years later, which is ~6 years after EQ first started dev.

I wouldn't want forced grouping.  I would want forced clanning.  I'm not oblivious to the suckfest, and I want the suckfest, perhaps dulled down.  I'm not saying that any game that had qualities I prefer had them implemented in a preferable way.  EQ had restricted resources, I'm not saying they had them restricted correctly.  However, it is clear that instancing does not restrict resources, and so I view it as a step in the wrong direction.

Your UO-L2 reference is invalid because even thoug L2 had "open" pvp, it still favored the non-pvper...

Only "Red names" drop their equipment in L2 if I recall right.  In UO people figured out it was MUCH better to just let someone else do all the work of finding equipment, mining, getting reagents, then kill them and take it from them...

They don't REALLY imagine the UO system and the ability to lose EVERYTHING you've got because you got PK'd.

Yes, only reds dropped items in L2 in pvp.  The pvp system in L2 did not have harsh enough death penalties for everyone, and did not have sufficient risk to a pker.  I am not opposed to a system in which you lose everything when you die, provided that the game also has clans which can fairly cheaply produce what you need again as a group.  That may be one way to increase death penalties without destroying your characters livelihood.  PvP needs to be balanced with respect to pirates and craftsmen, not among rogues and wizards.

I never tried to paint a rosey picture about past games.  Qualities I prefer in a game are not failsafe in their implementation, and often have different ways to be implemented.  If your goal is to aim for popularity, then perhaps I am not your target audience, but I believe that isn't relevant to this discussion.

[Nerf]

I'm no fan of WoW, but the antisocial tardery of video games hasn't changed one bit since MUDs started getting popular.  Having thousands of miles of cable and anonymity between you and whomever you're talking to dissolves a mighty shitload of those social niceties that are required in the real world.  If anything, instanced games like WoW actually limit the amount you can be affected by acts of said tards.  You have to deal with the verbal abuse of the Grunks of the world, but gone is the worry of him training the entire dungeon on you right before your group gets to the final boss.

If people are fondly remembering the community of a game, instead of the game, theres a reason for it.

I really don't understand why everyone thinks WoW is the spawn of Satan.  Before Blizzard got in the MMO business, subscription numbers of a few hundred thousand were considered excellent, the benchmark is now 10x-80x higher.  It's that popular for a reason, even if you don't enjoy it.

Also, how did a thread meant to chastise Schlid for not getting the WAR community invite turn into "Fuck Wow!"?

[Venkman]

I don't think Merusk was speculating all games must have those qualities. However, I do think the more popular (money/numbers-wise) have those qualities, and are popular due to them. It's all about individual taste, demographics and the businesses that deliver them. Person A might want forced clanning in games of resource conquest. But thus far we've seen that more people have been attracted to this genre in the West when that isn't a critical component of the endgame. And yet it works great in some parts of the Far East. A Western developer takes these things into account when they seek funding for a title or are told to do one. There's a reason why WoW is somewhat less innovative than titles that came before it. Typical Blizzard fashion: take what works for a lot of people, throw a lot of time and testing at it, discard large amounts of crap veterans put up with, launch, build money hats. It's because of the genre before them and what they learned from what people wanted (not what they merely accepted) that they won 2006.

There's no Single Best Way to do these games. There are many sub-groups of players. It's up to companies to know what groups they are trying to hit and try and deliver against them. Blizzard guessed right. Sigil guess wrong. CCP guessed right and are as successful at their scale as larger companies with more "popular" games are at theirs. Sure Blizzard makes more cash, but their overhead is a hell of a lot more too.

[qedetc]

I agree.  My preferences are currently very much not the norm.  I'm arguing because I feel that qualities I prefer are incorrectly being referred to as "bad" rather than "unpopular".  I don't mind that they're uncommon, and if they're as good as I think, then time will only favor them.  My goal isn't to convert people, but rather to defend the converted.  There are justified reasons to favor these things, apart from distorted nostalgia.

[Slayerik]

I agree.  My preferences are currently very much not the norm.  I'm arguing because I feel that qualities I prefer are incorrectly being referred to as "bad" rather than "unpopular".  I don't mind that they're uncommon, and if they're as good as I think, then time will only favor them.  My goal isn't to convert people, but rather to defend the converted.  There are justified reasons to favor these things, apart from distorted nostalgia.

We have the two ends of the new posting spectrum

on one end is "Drifting Darkangel" and "Grunk"

on the other is qedetc and Nerf


etc and Nerf, sit down...have a beer! Stay a while!

[Nerf]

Things are unpopular for a reason.

Edit: Whoa there Slayerik, don't lump me in qedetc, I'm no masochist.

Conflict is fun, items having a sense of value is fun, if it's all in moderation.  Getting stabbed in the cock repeatedly and without good reason is NOT fun.  I love playing golf, would I play it if every time I i addressed the ball, a midget ran up and stabbed me in the cock? Most certainly not.

[Slayerik]

Things are unpopular for a reason.

Edit: Whoa there Slayerik, don't lump me in qedetc, I'm no masochist.

Conflict is fun, items having a sense of value is fun, if it's all in moderation.  Getting stabbed in the cock repeatedly and without good reason is NOT fun.  I love playing golf, would I play it if every time I i addressed the ball, a midget ran up and stabbed me in the cock? Most certainly not.

Well I agree with both sides, and you both aren't idiots so...viola!

[HaemishM]

I think what most players fondly remember about EQ was the community. Because you had to group to get anywhere and because you had to conform to social conventions for spawn camps there was a lot less general asshattery than today in WoW for example. Yeah sitting at a spawn camp all day sucked but if you had the time you could kick back, watch TV and BS with the other nerds there and at the end of the day you got a shiny and most likely a bunch of new friends. Contrast that with WoW where there is a bunch of anti-social tardery because you don't need anyone to help you level and get passable gear and it's no wonder there are people that remember EQ fondly.

Ummm, I have no idea what you are talking about. The sheer level of mindnumbing cockery out of the general player base in EQ was about 15 worlds greater than anything I've experienced since, with the possible exception of my time in Shadowbane. And with Shadowbane, the game was made for other people to be cocks to you, that's what the game was about. Hell, the goddamn client took a gigantic shit on your head every 18th minute of play.

EQ was all about who could be the biggest shitheel, and the shitheelery got worse as you climbed the level ladder.

[qedetc]

I'm no masochist.

No no no.  I'm a sadist.  I want a game with excessive conflict so I can manipulate people and derive virtual economic and political superiority from the expense and suffering of others.  I have to accept those systems so I can potentially use them against other people for fun.  I call it the Uncle Pennybags paradox.

[waylander]

Well, we know more about PvP in War than AoC which is supposedly releasing soon.

Seen these?

AOC Game Walkthrough

AOC Dev Walkthrough 1

AOC Dev Walkthough 2

I think Warhammer is going to appeal to WoW/DAOC players, and I think AOC is going to appeal to Shadowbane/Darkfall/Old UO PVP/Hardcore PVP server population types.

[Rasix]

Well, we know more about PvP in War than AoC which is supposedly releasing soon.

Seen these?

AOC Game Walkthrough

AOC Dev Walkthrough 1

AOC Dev Walkthough 2

I think Warhammer is going to appeal to WoW/DAOC players, and I think AOC is going to appeal to Shadowbane/Darkfall/Old UO PVP/Hardcore PVP server population types.

Darkfall type? Is that like preferrring Duke Nukem Forever style FPS games?

[Montague]

I think what most players fondly remember about EQ was the community. Because you had to group to get anywhere and because you had to conform to social conventions for spawn camps there was a lot less general asshattery than today in WoW for example. Yeah sitting at a spawn camp all day sucked but if you had the time you could kick back, watch TV and BS with the other nerds there and at the end of the day you got a shiny and most likely a bunch of new friends. Contrast that with WoW where there is a bunch of anti-social tardery because you don't need anyone to help you level and get passable gear and it's no wonder there are people that remember EQ fondly.

Ummm, I have no idea what you are talking about. The sheer level of mindnumbing cockery out of the general player base in EQ was about 15 worlds greater than anything I've experienced since, with the possible exception of my time in Shadowbane. And with Shadowbane, the game was made for other people to be cocks to you, that's what the game was about. Hell, the goddamn client took a gigantic shit on your head every 18th minute of play.

EQ was all about who could be the biggest shitheel, and the shitheelery got worse as you climbed the level ladder.

*shrug*

I dunno, maybe Luclin was a shining utopia island in a universe of shit but I never had much of a problem with players there. Sure there was the occasional killstealer and the idiot who trained mobs into you but the vast majority of the people I encountered in my time in EQ weren't shitheels. Then again I started playing not too long after release.

If I could find a game with WoW gameplay and the community like Luclin back in the day I'd probably never leave the house. (Suppose it's a good thing I'll likely never find it)

[Montague]

I'm no masochist.

No no no.  I'm a sadist.  I want a game with excessive conflict so I can manipulate people and derive virtual economic and political superiority from the expense and suffering of others.  I have to accept those systems so I can potentially use them against other people for fun.  I call it the Uncle Pennybags paradox.

Mr. Cheyney, how do you find the time for posting on message boards?

[sinij]

In UO people figured out it was MUCH better to just let someone else do all the work of finding equipment, mining, getting reagents, then kill them and take it from them.

This is true but also VERY misleading.

UO was not item-centric game, it would not be uncommon to see people fighting naked (or in death robes) and do well. Gear in UO came in few flavors, but mostly it was all super-easy replaceable and majority of it was craftable. Fully looting someone had nowhere near as devastating effect, as say someone in EQ or WoW, since replacing your gear was quick and inexpensive for all by new players.

There was also item decay in place that also degraded its performance to the point where nearly-busted armor would be nearly-useless. It was possible to get all your armor used up in a single fight, mace fighters were notorious for busting your armor and shields. Standard practice would be to recycle all gear you looted into crafting components - i.e. metal armor to ignots, leather to leather scraps. That was done at a loss but guaranteed freshly crafted armor. Unless you were wildly successful in looting this was not good way to gather materials, but rather have enough to offset your gear decay due to fighting.

Also newbies would wear basic non-magical monster drop loot that frequently would be worth pennies and not recyclable. As a result fool looting would more often than not be done in order to punish killed player, not to make money. Killing newbies, contrary to popular belief, would not make you any money, since profit you would make from killing one often would be offset by reagents you spent killing one and effort trying to extract value out of junk gear.

Real money was done PKing 'farmers' - established players that went after VERY easy and VERY lucrative spawns, such as liches. If you wanted to quickly make good money you had to risk confrontation by PKs, so content balanced itself in risk vs. reward way. Better the spot more likely you have to fight for it. Out of the way and not lucrative spots would be entirely safe.

So 'kill them and take it from them' was entirely avoidable, just like 0.0 space in EvE. Only you had to *know* what spots are dangerous and what were safe and at what times.

[Yegolev]

So 'kill them and take it from them' was entirely avoidable, just like 0.0 space in EvE. Only you had to *know* what spots are dangerous and what were safe and at what times.

Well, in my experience, the dangerous spots were all of the ones outside the city, plus a few inside.  The entrance to the mine was particularly hazardous.  I managed to avoid being ganked by not logging in.

[Megrim]

Oh no, he didn't!

 

[Nerf]

I'm no masochist.

No no no.  I'm a sadist.  I want a game with excessive conflict so I can manipulate people and derive virtual economic and political superiority from the expense and suffering of others.  I have to accept those systems so I can potentially use them against other people for fun.  I call it the Uncle Pennybags paradox.

I'm a connoisseur of schadenfreude myself, but a system that you describe has a fatal flaw - people can and will quit.

Lets say that we have 2 groups, Group A and group B, and they are both contesting a single resource.
Lets also say that there were ample resources up until X time, after which there is only this one.  This means that once X occurs, the following will inevitably happen:

1) One group will monopolize the resource - lets say Group A, causing a large gap in power between the two groups.  This will in turn lead to;
    a) Group B will eventually get frustrated constantly losing - and quit.
    b) Group A will eventually get bored without a sufficient challenge - and quit.

People play games to have fun, and conflict can be fun - but only if it presents a challenge and a chance at victory.  If your opponent is too easy you get bored, too difficult and frustration sets in.  Without a healthy balance its not fun for anyone.

[Hoax]

EVE says:  You sir, are wrong!

I could tell the tale of SB @ launch (sb.exe lawlz) on the Scorn server and the dominance and eventual fall of R30 where neither side quit (well everyone quit shortly after but thats another matter), but power was sure as hell redistributed.  But thats not even a great example.  People who play EVE could tell a ton of stories of power redistribution through various means not involving one side or the other quitting.

Your example is an extreme oversimplification of the matter.

However, I do find this statement:

Well and good, but the reality of creating content means that a game with popularity will have one of a few things.  1)  Instances to spread-out the players as they reach the cap. 2) A 6-7 year development so they can create enough content to spread-out the players at the cap. 3) A horrible fucking grind that takes a year or more for the demi-hardcore to get through, which will striate the playerbase enough that the small amount of cap content created won't matter, since it'll take years for the majority of the playerbase to get there.  4) "It's all player-driven!" something like Eve.  They throw the tools at you, put in a few half-assed PvE money faucets and the rest is all PvP.

To be the current thread winner.  The only workaround I've seen successfully performed to the "Winner wins, Loser quits" pitfall that Nerf is bringing into the discussion is to make the game fall into category #4 of Merusk's post.


This is a good thread, if these hadn't all but died out a couple months ago I wouldn't have had to take a break, nice work new people.

[Merusk]

In UO people figured out it was MUCH better to just let someone else do all the work of finding equipment, mining, getting reagents, then kill them and take it from them.

This is true but also VERY misleading.

<snip>

Fair enough. Thanks for the education, I'd only pieced-together the 'players were better loot' from somethings other folks have said over the years in a similar vein.

However that means the problem wasn't PKs such as yourself who 'farmer farming' like that, but the folks who DID PK and full-loot noobs.  Even if it was only 5 people on a server that did it, doing it with any sort of quasi-regularity spread enough bad sentiment and word of mouth that people quit, or simply don't buy.

Hell, a review published in PC Gamer or GamePro or something like that in '97 was the entire reason I never bought it.  The reviewer had logged in and before he was done loading found himself ganked and fully-looted.  He struggled on and completed the review, I said "fuck that shit, I'm not paying cash for that" and was glad I'd picked up that mag while visiting Barnes & Noble that day.  Wonder how many other folks read the same review and had the same reaction.

But that's a whole 'noter discussion.   :-D

I don't think Merusk was speculating all games must have those qualities. However, I do think the more popular (money/numbers-wise) have those qualities, and are popular due to them.

Kind of.  My original point was that the folks reminiscing about "the good old days," were in fact rarely there to see them.  It's like the Ren Faire idiots who talk about how grand it would have been to live back 'in the day' without realizing they're emulating 5! of the population, and were in fact more likely to be dead or a toothless mother of 12 while packing filth into piles.

q.e.d. seemed to think that his experiences reflected the reality that angry.bob and later nebu and myself were remembering with such distaste.  I was pointing out that they didn't.   

That he seems to think they'd make a good game experience is his own choice and a matter of personal taste.  It's also a separate issue from what I was speaking of when I said:

 

I tend to think the "no instances, evar!!!" crowd have never had the pleasure of camping Guk.

Of course they haven't.  It's much like where every other 15 year old yahoo pines for the UO 'glory days' of open PvP without having taken part in them.

Which is why I had the whole long explanation of Guk and why it doesn't relate to velious/ luclin era EQ.

Do I disagree on that matter of personal taste? Oh yes, strongly and vehemently.  I also disagree on both a game design and business plan level.  "Open worlds" with "contested resources" that can be fully controlled?  That's reality, and reality sucks.  If it didn't we wouldn't need such escapism.  Nerf points out the reason it's a bad business decision, as did the "Winners" of their various Shadowbane servers.   Had BoB fared better in EvE and actually managed to destroy RF and the Goons and take-over "all" of 0.0 you'd see it there, too.

Remember, the first rule of any such game is, "You HAVE to be online longer than your opponent to win."   That's a game for unemployed folks and the idle rich.  That's an awfully small niche you're aiming for.  The rest of us will be elsewhere, thanks.

EVE says:  You sir, are wrong!

I could tell the tale of SB @ launch (sb.exe lawlz) on the Scorn server and the dominance and eventual fall of R30 where neither side quit (well everyone quit shortly after but thats another matter), but power was sure as hell redistributed.  But thats not even a great example.  People who play EVE could tell a ton of stories of power redistribution through various means not involving one side or the other quitting.

Your example is an extreme oversimplification of the matter.

It is an oversimplification, to a point.  R30s got overthrown but there was the one server where the group took over and never got overthrown that I recall hearing of.   Damned if I can remember which group it was, but I thought it began with an "A".    If the losing group of players hadn't had other servers to go to, would they have kept paying? 

Eve has stories of rebounding because people can go back to empire, disband their corp so they can't be wardec'd and then rebuild and reform and then come back to 0.0.   CCP was very smart to put this in, even if they do secretly hate it and that 2/3 of their player base lives there permanently.  Without someplace to recover, how many of those corps would have quit and how big would EvE really be today?  Hell, with the new sov methods, how many corps will be able to recover in Empire without any sort of 0.0 space to 'rat in regularly?

Fact is, losers need someplace to gain strength.  A full-out balls-to-the-wall no-holds-barred resource grab?  Not going to work.

[Signe]

Well, we know more about PvP in War than AoC which is supposedly releasing soon.

Seen these?

AOC Game Walkthrough

AOC Dev Walkthrough 1

AOC Dev Walkthough 2

I think Warhammer is going to appeal to WoW/DAOC players, and I think AOC is going to appeal to Shadowbane/Darkfall/Old UO PVP/Hardcore PVP server population types.

Darkfall type? Is that like preferrring Duke Nukem Forever style FPS games?

I hope not.   :-(

[pants]

I love playing golf, would I play it if every time I i addressed the ball, a midget ran up and stabbed me in the cock? Most certainly not.

I find your idea intriguing.  I think you should turn it into a Japanese game show.

[Nerf]

It's oversimplified to the point where there is 1 contested resource and 2 groups, lets expand it to 4 resources, and 8 groups.


As you can see, as long as you have more groups than resources, it's simply going to be a war of attrition to get down the final boredom/frustation - quit.

Eve doesn't say I'm wrong at all, imagine the chart with 10 groups and 200 resources.  While some groups may spread themselves out to multiple resources, the bottom line is that there WILL be open resources, and someone can get in and get their isk.

[Azazel]

[Johny Cee]

Busting out a funny chart before your 20th post?  Wow.

[qedetc]

As you can see, as long as you have more groups than resources, it's simply going to be a war of attrition to get down the final boredom/frustation - quit.

C can PM the leaders of A, E, and F, and proposes that they zerg Pony as the inurFACE alliance.
Or
Saboteurs within Pony can create artificial turmoil and splinter off.
Or
A,B,C,D,E,F each build up, but less efficiently than their Pony rivals.  There is likely an eventual limit to power, or diminishing returns, so at some point they could near Pony, if not match.
Or
The final resource is God mode, and the game is designed in a way that a single clan can dominate the entire server for a sustained period of time without the cooperation of others.

Resources don't need to be all or nothing, there can be more efficient areas, which the top clans would fight over.  I'm not in favor of having a single access point for progression, that would be terrible.

[Nerf]

As you can see, as long as you have more groups than resources, it's simply going to be a war of attrition to get down the final boredom/frustration - quit.

C can PM the leaders of A, E, and F, and proposes that they zerg Pony as the inurFACE alliance.
Or
Saboteurs within Pony can create artificial turmoil and splinter off.
Or
A,B,C,D,E,F each build up, but less efficiently than their Pony rivals.  There is likely an eventual limit to power, or diminishing returns, so at some point they could near Pony, if not match.
Or
The final resource is God mode, and the game is designed in a way that a single clan can dominate the entire server for a sustained period of time without the cooperation of others.

Resources don't need to be all or nothing, there can be more efficient areas, which the top clans would fight over.  I'm not in favor of having a single access point for progression, that would be terrible.

I think there should be alternative places, but that they should suck.  I don't want everyone to be happy.
...
I'm not oblivious to the suckfest, and I want the suckfest, perhaps dulled down.

I was simply illustrating the picture that you painted for us, if it'd make it easier for you, I can add in some color to show the progression gap caused by the efficient vs. suck dynamic.

Also, pony will never be defeated.  inurFACE are a bunch of fucking noobs.

[WayAbvPar]

I love playing golf, would I play it if every time I i addressed the ball, a midget ran up and stabbed me in the cock? Most certainly not.

I find your idea intriguing.  I think you should turn it into a Japanese game show.

Coffee in my nose. Well played.