The Competitive Illusion of Crushing: War and the MMOG

[Dark Vengeance]

The other point being brought up: "Skill" as opposed to stats...Well, I have no argument against that. It would go a long way, especially in a open PvP type environment, to help some players who would otherwise lose in a time-invested-based RPG. It gives them an equal chance to "Play2Crush" just as everyone else. I sincerely desire this myself, as I'm just as time-constrained as the next guy.

I think it has to be a blend here. My point is that stats should at their worst put you at a disadvantage, but should not outright decide the outcome. There needs to be enough of a stat element that players see some benefit through long-term play, but enough of a skill element to prevent the automatic wins in newb ganking, and to make it possible for a skilled player to beat a zerg rush when jumped with numbers.

Note that I say such things should be possible...that doesn't mean easy.

You want to take care against going too far into the "player skill" camp. In RPGs, after all, the point is you are probably playing someone quite unlike yourself. Your nimble assassin should have much better reflexes as a character than you do as a player....if the performance of that character is irrevocably tied to the clumsy buttfuck at the keyboard, the character is permanently marginalized.

Consider also that for everyone's ability to develop and progress and advance their skills, a game based on player skill has a high barrier to entry for most folks. And even the ones who get hooked on it can only progress their skills so far...some folks, for all of their practice and effort, are just never going to be able to play at an elite level.

There's a progression from twitch to oldschool UO combat to the Squaresoft RPG real time combat to a chess match to simple 'click and stick' of MMOGs where combat is almost solely determined by stats.

But why should there be any more to it than that...Like instancing? Introducing player skill evens it all out already. Instancing does nothing except shatter the idea that this is a world where things can be gained or lost. Only a loser would want that, and frankly, you can't give losers everything they want. I say give them a chance, yeah, but to give them more than that is really watering it down.

Instancing keeps people from interfering for good or bad. It prevents reinforcements and the returning dead. Thus, all battles reach conclusion at some point, and a winner is determined. This is opposed to current MMOG combat where immortals are locked in eternal battle that doesn't end until someone gets bored, or has to log off to walk the dog or do their homework.

My personal tastes would just as soon say "it's a world, this stuff should be able to happen" but I'm not as opposed to open PvP as most MMOG fans.

Sounds like you want Diablo. Have fun, k thnx.

He very well might. But here's the part you need to consider....a LOT of MMOG players just want a persistent Diablo with regular content updates and more character customization. And quests. And houses with nice bright sunflowers you can put on the window sill. And a pony.

That doesn't make them wrong....just that most of them never wanted the first M in MMOG to begin with. It's what they had to put up with to get their PSW version of Diablo.

You may disagree, as I do, that those should not be the people dictating the content of all MMOGs....but we have to face facts that without these folks, the genre would be a much smaller niche market than it is already.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[schild]

Wrong. Instancing keeps the assholes away from the fun I can have with my friends. Despite what people thing, the fun is in the world and friends. Not other people. If you need that kind of atmosphere without instancing, go to the mall.

Sounds like you want Diablo.  Have fun, k thnx.

Hmmm. Yes, there are things in Diablo that could fix things. But when I'm out questing or hunting, I don't want other people "fucking with my shit, yo." I want to play the game with friends and whatnot. When I'm in town or going resource gathering or something, that can all be massively online multiplayer whatever. But any focused activity should be far removed from the idiots you'll find spamming a chat channel.

[Viin]

You want to take care against going too far into the "player skill" camp. In RPGs, after all, the point is you are probably playing someone quite unlike yourself. Your nimble assassin should have much better reflexes as a character than you do as a player....if the performance of that character is irrevocably tied to the clumsy buttfuck at the keyboard, the character is permanently marginalized.

Consider also that for everyone's ability to develop and progress and advance their skills, a game based on player skill has a high barrier to entry for most folks. And even the ones who get hooked on it can only progress their skills so far...some folks, for all of their practice and effort, are just never going to be able to play at an elite level.

Oh, I agree. When I talk about player skill I don't mean 'twitch' skills alone (or at all). Player skill also includes tactics and strategy. It can also include leadership (organizing your group/party to out-maneuver your opponents).

One of the reasons I like GuildWars so much is because it has the potential to be a very solid tactics based RPG. I already enjoy the PvP arenas when I'm fighting along side people I don't even know - imagine how fun it'll be when we are in an organized group!

[schild]

One of the reasons I like GuildWars so much is because it has the potential to be a very solid tactics based RPG. I already enjoy the PvP arenas when I'm fighting along side people I don't even know - imagine how fun it'll be when we are in an organized group!

That's exactly it. Not a single one of the current MMORPGs really requires strategy or tactics. Which really makes everyone else just window dressing. Hence my current love of instancing.

[Krakrok]

Wrong. Instancing keeps the assholes away from the fun I can have with my friends. Despite what people thing, the fun is in the world and friends. Not other people. If you need that kind of atmosphere without instancing, go to the mall.

I can't PK people at the mall. Friends are predictable. Assholes aren't. Instancing is predictable. A virtual world isn't.

That being said, I like Guild Wars, not as an MMOG but as a game.

I'd like to see a developer try the tack of nerfing the winner in PVP and buffing the losers. Keep nerfing the winner until the winner loses and then reset the winner to normal. Repeat with the new winner. Every "win" becomes progressively more challenging for the winner. The winner feels like an underdog when they win and the win is all the more satisfying because the winner beat down the guy who had a flaming sword with a fork. The loser doesn't feel like a loser because he had all kinds of cool/powerful shit to play with even though he lost.


Re the article: I don't care for "sports" games but there might be a happy medium between "sport" and "war". Guild Wars seems well on it's way to finding it.

[sinij]

Wrong. Instancing keeps the assholes away from the fun I can have with my friends. Despite what people thing, the fun is in the world and friends. Not other people. If you need that kind of atmosphere without instancing, go to the mall.

Sounds like you want Diablo.  Have fun, k thnx.

I agree. If you think that other people affecting your game is a bad thing then you shouldn't play mmorpgs since that about only thing that mmorpg can do better than readily available alternatives.

Game should be designed in such way that assholes should not be able to negatively affect your game play in PvE games and that you should have readily available and meaningful means to retaliate in PvP games.

[sinij]

I don't think the desire for fame, infamy, or furthered power could ever be satisfied from scoreboard results and trophies won in instanced battlefields.

I disagree. In old UO days being part of the crew that controlled important spot was a thing to strive for.  Back in a day my guild controlled Moonglow and our enemies resided in Occlo - for us controlling our 'turf' was a matter of principle and trespassing in Occlo was exciting and dangerous thing to do. There were tons of spots like that with a group of people that took pride at being called "such and such crew". I'm sure most of UO old timers remember X-roads, Destard, Brit GY and many other otherwise unexciting spots that were put on the map by people that run it. If simple ‘fame’ could be such strong motivating factor imagine what tangible rewards and ability to negatively affect your enemies would do.

[Margalis]

Negatively affecting your enemies will not work.

The problem with war in MMORPGs is that in real war, one side eventually loses, and losing isn't fun. So you can take over my main city and burn it down and now I can't buy any waepons anymore - ok I quit. Your choices are either have a war that lasts forever with no real consequences (boring) or have a war with real consequences and have everyone on the losing side switch servers or unsubscribe.

And again, people are refusing to acknowledge that there are two types of PvP players: players who want the unpredictability of a Wild West free for all, and players who want a competition.

Until people acknowledge that those two things are very different, they will keep arguing in circles forever. If I propose something that appeals to group B, the response can't be "well what about group A?" Those are two DIFFERENT problems.

It's easy to give group A what they want. Just let anyone kill anyone at any time, problem solved.

Group B is harder to please. Hence this discussion.

[Raguel]

I didn't read the whole thread but:

While reading the article, I couldn't help but think about Shadowbane, about the things I liked and the things I hated about that game. One thing that I remember (at least in beta) is this group of roleplayers that split themselves into sides, so they had a 'gentleman's agreement' sort of pvp. I think that's superior in the long run and it's sort of what you're suggesting. I wonder if it's up to the players or the designers to make the game like that.

[Margalis]

It has to be up to the designers. The first rule of MMORPGs is players WILL break something if they can. Gentleman's agreements will never work amongst a random collection of individuals. In a guild, yes. In a wide open scenario, no way.

I remember in the Tribes: Vengeance BETA there was a guy who would go from server to server killing his own team members. If people can do it, there will be someone who will.

[Dark Vengeance]

It has to be up to the designers. The first rule of MMORPGs is players WILL break something if they can. Gentleman's agreements will never work amongst a random collection of individuals. In a guild, yes. In a wide open scenario, no way.

I remember in the Tribes: Vengeance BETA there was a guy who would go from server to server killing his own team members. If people can do it, there will be someone who will.

But the question that is still seriously debated is how much should you then limit interaction to prevent such things before the fact? The only way to take away a player's ability to say "FUCK YOU COCKNIBBLER" is to take away the ability for players to openly communicate with each other. At least, if you want to protect people before-the-fact, and have it be 100% effective.

What the other side is saying Margalis, is that if you accept that the intent for abusive behavior is going to exist no matter what you do, then in many ways a "less is more" approach is desirable. The core belief being that you have to free up the players to organize and respond as needed to enforce the norms of the gaming society. In effect, player justice.

Haemish's argument is based in part on player justice being unattractive for the mass-market...friendly competition being preferable in the mass-market to all-out war. For all you can do through code or admins, you're fighting a losing battle to use them as a way to filter out the negative interactions in your community, yet let the positive interactions through.

The problem, of course is that every measure to block bad interaction also limits good interaction. Every attempt to enable more positive interaction will also enable negative interactions.

So how far do we go? We're truly talking about finding a happy medium between laissez-faire open interaction and single-player or limited multiplayer games (i.e. Diablo)...an "acceptable level of suck" for MMOGs, if you will. How far do we go?

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Arnold]

I didn't read the whole thread but:

While reading the article, I couldn't help but think about Shadowbane, about the things I liked and the things I hated about that game. One thing that I remember (at least in beta) is this group of roleplayers that split themselves into sides, so they had a 'gentleman's agreement' sort of pvp. I think that's superior in the long run and it's sort of what you're suggesting. I wonder if it's up to the players or the designers to make the game like that.

That happened on probably every server in UO.  There was lots of arguing that went along with it.  "He attacked me without following procedure."  "Those guys are ressing and coming back to fight.  I'm going to start looting corpses so they can't"  etc.

[Margalis]

I don't believe that player justice really exists in MMORPGs. It's a myth. Players don't have the tools for real justice, and the world conditions aren't right.

Take WoW. If I call you, you can just come back 5 minutes later. How is that justice. If a high level player is ganking lowbies in a lowbie zone, what incentive is there for high level players to come kill that guy then camp his corpse for a while.

Justice in real life involves social norms, societal pressure, organized forces, codified rules of behavior, prisons, etc. MMORPGs have none of those.

In the real world cops work because they get paid and because they want to help people. In MMORPGs you don't get paid for helping people, and the incentive to help isn't nearly as strong. (If they die who cares, it's a game, and besides you have more giant spiders to kill)

If you allow open PvP, sure you allow some people to get justice or at least temporary revenge, but you also open the door to more abuse - which is FINE by me again if you are looking for a Wild West scenario. I see how that appeals to people - it doesn't appeal to me.

What appeals to me is "I've tested my mettle against 10000 Spiny Cockroaches, it would be cool to test it against a real person." Or "We are the best guild in the land and we're going to prove it head to head."

That has nothing to do with griefing, anti-griefing, player justice or any of that. It's just a logical extension of what people want to do in a game, like having a war sim game with a 2 player mode.

[Arnold]

Take WoW. If I call you, you can just come back 5 minutes later. How is that justice. If a high level player is ganking lowbies in a lowbie zone, what incentive is there for high level players to come kill that guy then camp his corpse for a while.

But look at Asheron's Call.  You get a cumulative penalty of 5% on your skills evreytime you die, called "Vitae Loss".  You also lose a number of items, per death, depending on your level.  Granted, your gear was protected by "death items" (items of high value  that are otherwise worthless to the owner), but after a couple of deaths, you'll be dropping REAL gear and will be operating like a character of a much lower level.

[Margalis]

The thing is in real life, you kill someone once, you are going to jail for a long time. Go on a murder spree and you die or spend life in prison. In a perma-death game, player justice might work well.

The problem is PvP is supposed to be fun and something you do! The problem isn't killing people (like it is in real life), it's killing the wrong people in "unsportsmanlike" fashion.

I don't see stat loss/item loss as being a pro or a con. It sucks worse to die, but it's that much more fun to gank newbies who now have the added benefit of losing all their gear.

Especially in WoW, where there are two sides that are supposed to be at odds. In game fiction terms, it sort of makes sense that my level 60 guy kills your level 5 guy. It also isn't any fun.

I'm all for stat loss and item loss and what have you, but I'll say it again: THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF PVP PLAYERS AND THAT IS ONLY RELEVANT TO ONE TYPE.

That is why discussions on board go nowhere. The PvP people who want competition are called carebares by the free-for-all fans. Stat loss, item loss, all that stuff is great for tweaking the wild-west style PvP, but adds nothing for people looking for competitive PvP. For those people PvP is not about player justice, vengeance, or a wide-open world, it's about skillfull competition.

If you are going to solve a problem, step 1 is identify the problem - and everyone is stuck there!

[Arnold]

That is why discussions on board go nowhere. The PvP people who want competition are called carebares by the free-for-all fans. Stat loss, item loss, all that stuff is great for tweaking the wild-west style PvP, but adds nothing for people looking for competitive PvP. For those people PvP is not about player justice, vengeance, or a wide-open world, it's about skillfull competition.

If you are going to solve a problem, step 1 is identify the problem - and everyone is stuck there!

But we're talking about MMOGs.  If you want to play Streetfighter, go play Streetfighter.  The rest of us want the unpredictable interaction with other players.

[WindupAtheist]

In other words, fuck you and go quit if you don't like open PVP?

Hey, why don't you guys go find Raph Koster.  Together you can design a "virtual world" full of "consequences" and "player justice."  Then you can all sit around wondering why it fucking sucks and nobody plays it.

[Dark Vengeance]

The problem is PvP is supposed to be fun and something you do! The problem isn't killing people (like it is in real life), it's killing the wrong people in "unsportsmanlike" fashion.

The problem is that you'll never even get the entire playerbase to agree on what is and is not sportsmanlike. You had consentual duels in UO, where losing players went crying to the message boards BECAUSE OMG THEIR OPPONENT USED A HEALING POTION.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Margalis]

But we're talking about MMOGs.  If you want to play Streetfighter, go play Streetfighter.  The rest of us want the unpredictable interaction with other players.

No, the rest of us don't.

That kind of inflexible thinking is quite frankly retarded. Is it your religious duty to protect the sanctity of MMORPGs?

I would point out in SF1 you could only play as 1 character. Does that mean SF2 was a bad idea? In GTA: SA you can train your attributes but in the other GTA games you couldn't - so GTA:SA isn't a GTA game anymore?

Why say "they rest of us" when you mean "I"? That's pathetic.

Your logic is the grade-school level "love it or leave it." I would point out that some MMORPGS have NO PVP AT ALL. Maybe those aren't real MMORPGs?

You are constructing a completely fake an idiotic either/or scenario. All people all asking for is a LOGICAL ADDITION TO THE GAME. We're not talking about making the game a 2d sidescrolling Mario adventure. Take the game you have, then take a baby step forward by adding a feature a bunch of people want.

Margalis: "You know what would be cool? An RTS game with more than 2 distinct sides."

Arnold: "If you want Street Fighter, play Street Fighter!"

Good call genius.

[Margalis]

The problem is that you'll never even get the entire playerbase to agree on what is and is not sportsmanlike. You had consentual duels in UO, where losing players went crying to the message boards BECAUSE OMG THEIR OPPONENT USED A HEALING POTION.

You don't need everyone to agree, but you don't have to. You just have to cut down on the worst behavior the best you can. Just like all MMORPGs have some ways to grief even in strictly PvE environments, but some are worse than others.

In the end the players will have to put up with some things that rub them the wrong way, that's alright. You just want to avoid a huge outcry. A lot of people in WoW are pissed and complaining about the same thing. (And it isn't using potions!)

You can't eliminate every problem, but you can eliminate huge problems. At some point you do have to say take it or leave it, but first you have to make at least a reasonable effort.

[Arnold]

In other words, fuck you and go quit if you don't like open PVP?

Hey, why don't you guys go find Raph Koster.  Together you can design a "virtual world" full of "consequences" and "player justice."  Then you can all sit around wondering why it fucking sucks and nobody plays it.

From my perspective, it started sucking when they started messing with the game systems, and no, I'm not specifically referring to UO:R.  I played Siege, so it didn't disrupt my game as much as some on regular shards.

BODs, powerscrolls, faction blessing, AOS, etc...  that's why I no longer play it.

[Arnold]

Margalis: "You know what would be cool? An RTS game with more than 2 distinct sides."

Arnold: "If you want Street Fighter, play Street Fighter!"

Good call genius.

My comment went right over your head.  I mentioned Street Fighter (was actually referring to SF2) because it's a pvp game where there is no advantage to either side and no one can jump in and ruin your fun.

And there are more people than me advocating the same thing; just read the thread.  We feel that the whole point of playing in an MMOG is to interact with other people.  If all you want to do is dungeon crawl with your close knit group of friends, Diablo is the perfect game.  If you want PvP with evenly balanced sides and games that reset when one side crushes the other, there are tons of options- FPS, RTS, fighting, etc games.

The more of the virtual world aspect you remove from MMOGs, the less reason there is to play them.  I've voted with my dollars and am not currently playing any, and haven't played any for almost 2 years.  MY game was UO, but EA ruined it with their "MUD wimping".

[Margalis]

No, the perfect game is what we are asking for. A MMORPG with skillfull competition. Well not perfect, but what a lot of people want. I am fully aware of the other types of games that exist, and I don't want them, at least not to fill this need.

[HaemishM]

"If you don't like open PVP, leave it."

Yep, most people did. UO only removed, nerfed or adjudicated open PVP when PEOPLE STOPPED PLAYING (and thus paying). This is a lesson some people still haven't gotten. Open PVP worlds are great in theory; but as a commercial, mass-market venture, they do not make the money. Period. UO lost a shitton of players when it would not constrict or otherwise control the amount of open PVP allowed. It's solutions were terrible solutions, I will grant you that. But not one game since has shown that having wide open PVP is a commercially-viable option for a game the size most MMOG's need to be.

MMOG's are a niche game. They are a niche of another niche genre, RPG's. Open PVP MMOG's are a niche of MMOG's. Thus they are a niche of a niche of a niche. More people have shown themselves to be receptive to a competitive, yet restricted, PVP environment than an open one.

I'm not going to tell you that there isn't an open PVP audience, as I think that's quite obvious. But it isn't as big as that market thinks of itself. An open PVP MMOG would do well to maintain 50k subscriptions over a year's time.

Look at Shadowbane. Sold really well in the beginning. But its design flaws, as well as its bugginess, killed it. It was way too punishing on the losers, causing them to quit. Which caused the winners to quit because there was no one to fight. Now it has server populations that are about 1/4 what they were at release. There are two lessons in there, one of which is do not release a buggy fucking game. But the other is that open PVP is even more tricky to balance than PVE, for a lot less money.

"Player justice."

Myth. It won't happen. Wishing it would happen won't help. Player justice in MMOG's isn't justice, it's vengeance. And the people who are punished are not punished in an equitable fashion.

Look, justice works in the real world because the punishment is often more damaging than the crime. If someone murders someone else, they either get a death penalty, or they get locked up for life. In an MMOG, player justice can't work this way. The killer takes his victim and then what? If we have player justice, all that amounts to is someone else coming along and killing the killer. Woop. The killer is right back "out on the streets" and can be up and killing again as quickly as his victim. The punishment is way out of whack to the crime. The victim might have just been wanting to mine but now his mining has been interrupted. Meanwhile the killer is out there wanting to fight and kill, so if a player justicar attacks him after he kills the miner, he's gotten TWO fights for the price of one.

A developer cannot rely on player justice for the same reason there are 2 schools of PVP such as Margalis said. Players who enjoy PVP can't even agree on how open PVP should be. You want players to decide justice?

It would be an interesting social experiment, but again, it won't be mass market.

The mass market are sheep. The mass market wants fun, not "reality." They don't want a virtual world, they want to play in a world-like game with their friends. That doesn't preclude the development of ANY virtual world type game, but both the developers and the players need to realize that it won't be a mass market game.

[dusematic]

Can't we just all agree that pre-Trammel UO was the best game ever?

No, seriously, I went back to UO so many times but it just wasn't the same without all the ganking.  The thing about UO was, you could afford a complete suit of platemail and a viking sword practically immediately.  So, while dying sucked it didn't destroy a person's sanity, as losing all of your gear at level 50 in EQ would.  

I always found UO hilarious.  The more ridiculous and contrived, the more "d00ds" the better.  I have never made so many distinct memories while playing another game.  I know a lot of people don't like open PvP, and I totally understand.  I wouldn't want it in a game like WoW or EQ2 either, and I think that removing the ability to loot your opponent lessens the draw.  

I am surprised that so many people complain about all the inconcievably stupid and immature happenings in UO.  I always found it very amusing.  It just seemed to fit within the context of the game.  In a game like WoW people are infinitely more annoying, though I have a feeling it's probably because I'm not allowed to attack them.

[Soukyan]

Can't we just all agree that pre-Trammel UO was the best game ever?

No. Seriously. It wasn't.

[WindupAtheist]

The mass market are sheep. The mass market wants fun, not "reality." They don't want a virtual world, they want to play in a world-like game with their friends.

For fifty bucks up front and another fifteen a month, you're goddamned right.  I'm not sure where this notion of MMOG as navel-gazing social experiment on the nature of internet dumbfuckery came from, but it sounds like something Raph Koster came up with between bouts of fiddling as UO burned.

I didn't walk into GameStop looking to buy a virtual world, I plopped down my cash for a fucking multiplayer computer game, okay?  Can some of you assclowns take a second away from theorizing on the interactive dynamics of virtual spaces long enough to deal with that?

I don't just mean here on these boards.  I mean all you drunken pseudo-intellectuals that have been spouting off on various spawn-of-Lum websites for the last seven years, as if "Gee, why is UO so full of shitheads?" is some sort of burning question that will dictate the course of human interaction in that shiny cyberpunk future where everyone uses teh intarweb for everything.

I mean, guess what?  So far it seems like World of Warcraft has cracked the code and solved the mystery that is the making of a fun MMOG, at least from my perspective.  The magical formula?

1 - Give me shitloads of quests and stuff to do.
2 - Keep the gankers over there where they won't bother me.

Really, that's about it.  And if it gets boring someday, I'll just fucking quit.  That's right.  Nothing is fun forever, and questing for an MMOG you can play from now until Doomsday and always have fun is just a fool's errand.

[Krakrok]

I mean, guess what?  So far it seems like World of Warcraft has cracked the code and solved the mystery that is the making of a fun MMOG, at leaat from my perspective.

No, WoW came up with a better slot machine. Enjoy your blinky lights. There is nothing wrong with a better slot machine if you don't mind staring empty eyed at the blue glowing screen while the drool drips down your chin.

Hell, they almost suckered me in too.

[AcidCat]

I mean, guess what?  So far it seems like World of Warcraft has cracked the code and solved the mystery that is the making of a fun MMOG, at leaat from my perspective.

No, WoW came up with a better slot machine. Enjoy your blinky lights. There is nothing wrong with a better slot machine if you don't mind staring empty eyed at the blue glowing screen while the drool drips down your chin.

Hell, they almost suckered me in too.

Is there really any objective to playing games other than having fun? This blinky-light slot machine is sure delivering it, and that's all that matters.

[WindupAtheist]

No, WoW came up with a better slot machine. Enjoy your blinky lights. There is nothing wrong with a better slot machine if you don't mind staring empty eyed at the blue glowing screen while the drool drips down your chin.

Hell, they almost suckered me in too.

Oh man, you're right!  My game is just a sad addictive zombification machine for sheep!  But if they added open PvP grief-ganking, man, then it would be totally different!  It would become a dynamic and exciting virtual world full of unpredictable excitement where everyone lived under the harsh but even hand of player justice!

Oh wait.  It'd be the exact same game, but with assholes ganking newbs, and 75% fewer subscribers.  My bad.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ, it never ceases to amaze me how pretentious certain dipshits can be about their videogame r0xx0ring of those who suxx0r.  If some guy acts like a cockmunch and you can just ignore or otherwise easily marginalize his effect on you, that's bad.  But if you and the cockmunch can clobber each other with the game's combat mechanics, it's a revolutionary exploration of human conflict.  Right.

Really, you're whacking people in a videogame, champ.  You're not living in the Old West.  You're not showing anyone that you have a big dick.  You're doing something about as relevant to the universe as Super Mario Brothers.  Get the fuck over yourself.  Nothing in these games matters, except insofar as someone likes them enough to pay the company for them.

[Paelos]

Really, you're whacking people in a videogame, champ.  You're not living in the Old West.  You're not showing anyone that you have a big dick.  You're doing something about as relevant to the universe as Super Mario Brothers.  Get the fuck over yourself.  Nothing in these games matters, except insofar as someone likes them enough to pay the company for them.

And you're on a forum telling people who discuss video game nuances to get a life. You obviously didn't get the memo, "get real" is not an acceptable argument on how to improve games. It's basically as constructive as saying "stop paying" if you have issues with the dynamics. In any case, pvp is important to many, but broken to almost all due to the system. That's the issue. Get on track.

[WindupAtheist]

And you're on a forum telling people who discuss video game nuances to get a life.

No, I'm telling people who think they're discussing something of import that they ARE in fact discussing video game nuances.

You obviously didn't get the memo, "get real" is not an acceptable argument on how to improve games. It's basically as constructive as saying "stop paying" if you have issues with the dynamics.

Ceasing payment is the most constructive thing to do in that instance, yeah.  It's the only thing a company really listens to.  Coming to boards like this and posting long-winded diatribes that amout to "Give me PvP but no griefing, character advancement with no repetition, and reward my efforts but keep that catass who plays 18 hours per day from getting ahead of me!" certainly hasn't affected jack shit.

In any case, pvp is important to many, but broken to almost all due to the system. That's the issue. Get on track.

PvP is important to a niche of a niche of a niche, and it's broken because people act like fuckheads.

[Glazius]

And you're on a forum telling people who discuss video game nuances to get a life.

No, I'm telling people who think they're discussing something of import that they ARE in fact discussing video game nuances.

...wherever did you get the idea we thought this was important? "Important" isn't the same thing as "interesting".

You obviously didn't get the memo, "get real" is not an acceptable argument on how to improve games. It's basically as constructive as saying "stop paying" if you have issues with the dynamics.

Ceasing payment is the most constructive thing to do in that instance, yeah.  It's the only thing a company really listens to.  Coming to boards like this and posting long-winded diatribes that amout to "Give me PvP but no griefing, character advancement with no repetition, and reward my efforts but keep that catass who plays 18 hours per day from getting ahead of me!" certainly hasn't affected jack shit.

Ah, okay. And if you go to a restaurant and they give you regular Coke when you asked for diet, your only or at least best recourse is to storm out in anger and never go there again, no matter what? Or at least until they change managers? Even if they have the best damn burgers in the tri-county area?

Because these _are_ video game nuances, and there are a couple skrillion other nuances about the game that may very well be enjoyable, in much the same way that the meal may be enjoyable even if the drink isn't up to spec. This does not stop people from wanting their Diet Coke.

In any case, pvp is important to many, but broken to almost all due to the system. That's the issue. Get on track.

PvP is important to a niche of a niche of a niche, and it's broken because people act like fuckheads.

Uh, competition in general - or if you will, mediated conflict - is a, if not the, driving force for societal progress, and properly managed can produce a favorable outcome even for the losers. I doubt there's anyone alive over the age of about six who hasn't engaged in some real-world PvP.

The Internet is a form of society with some amazing changes from what anyone's studied. For one, the physics are entirely mutable. The issue at hand is how it might be possible to create PvP that minimizes the brokenness - or, yeah, in a larger perspective, how to give newbies and catasses a level ground, how to create advancement without the feeling of repetition.

Raph has some things to say about that last (if your game has anything that can be repeated, people will repeat it, all the while complaining about repetition) but the challenge is whether it's mechanistically and sociologically possible to create a universe that tends toward fairness, adventure, and honorable combat.

--GF

[HaemishM]

And you're on a forum telling people who discuss video game nuances to get a life.

No, I'm telling people who think they're discussing something of import that they ARE in fact discussing video game nuances.

Some of us are actually passionate about video games. Like me, for instance. It IS important to us, though we obviously aren't going to say that our discussions are as important as say, medical research or even the proper amount of jiggle factor in a pr0n video. But that doesn't mean our discussions can't have merit, nor that we can't enjoy them.

Yes, anyone that thinks our little mental circle jerk is going to change the industry is naive. But that doesn't invalidate the discussion of the nuances.

[Dark Vengeance]

Sweet Christ....some folks in this thread need to learn to append comments with "to me" or "for me".

For example:

Open PvP is fun FOR ME.

Debates about games are not important TO ME.

Diablo is not exciting TO ME.

Also acceptable: IMO.

The value-added benefit such notation provides is that we can simply declare ***YOU GUYS*** to be retarded shitbubbles instead of getting into a massive ideological debate about which position is inherently superior.

And calling you folks retarded shitbubbles is fun FOR ME....so get with the program.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............