The Laws of Online Gaming Revisited...

[Raph]

20k accounts? Er, how big IS the UO emu scene these days? How many users total, any estimates? How mahy of those 20k accounts are actual players? What's your active userbase size? How many uniques in a day?

[Azaroth]

18,708 right now actually.

No estimate on total users, really. We restrict to two accounts per IP, so you can look at that a lot of ways. Everyone has a second account, half of the people have a second account, not too many people have a second account.

Of course, I've heard it's not entirely uncommon for the average account per person on OSI to be estimated at more than two itself. I've seen people with 50 ffs :P

We could pull some metrics I suppose, as we use an email recovery system that forces you to attach an email to your account for things like password recovery/changing and higher end administration crap. It can get tricky though, as many, many people choose not to attach an email to their account for one reason or another, and the way shared accounts are logged makes it impossible to track the number of a users accounts by their IP. Which would be completely unrealistic anyway. I'm sure we could figure it out, but our resident math horndog isn't around anymore.

Uniques is our userbase size. Unlike any other shard we place restrictions on several things, like account creation and logins. We've had a one connection per IP limit in for a very long time now, and our prime time traffic will go over 700 unique connections, and sits at about 600 during the rest of the day, due to the seemingly quite large foreign population. And the macroing.

The UO emu scene has grown since IPY rolled in and started doing 1500 (non unique at the time) connected clients at a time. We might go back to a less restrictive system once we get onto our new dual xeon server on wednesday, as it's mighty impressive to log in and see 1500, but there are a lot of practical reasons why it's just not the best idea - although, the wow factor does, I imagine, retain players a lot better. Plus people on networks get shafted a bit.

There are some other big shards out there that generally came along after IPYs success. Most shards, as always, have like five people. But there's those few bigger ones with 1/200 non-unique connections at a time. I hear the official RunUO UO:R shard is doing well lately due to their implementation of factions. However, the amount of people who tended to put together 20 characters macroing in a small house at the same time when we had no limits like these other servers really makes me suspect of their populations.

Nevertheless, playing on IPY is just like playing on an OSI shard, population wise, and the players love it. I've often heard we're more populated than the OSI shard a player had just come from.

Also our active population has recently dropped a bit due to several factors, mainly including faults in the PvP system that allow for some pretty lame stuff that quite a few people tend to take advantage of. We've hopefully addressed them well in the upcoming patch, and I wouldn't be surprised to see our average unique client count go up to 850 or so. Were we to implement factions immediately it'd be really nice for the count, but I want to add some sieging factionish features to the town system instead, which I hope overall will be more fun and better for the shard.

[Sky]

Also our active population has recently dropped a bit due to several factors, mainly including faults in the PvP system that allow for some pretty lame stuff that quite a few people tend to take advantage of.

And so the cycle goes on...

[HaemishM]

Player justice is a myth. It won't happen. It can't happen on a large enough scale for MMOG's to be worth bothering with.

You see, as we should all know by now, griefers, especially serial griefers are complete cockmunchers. They are the motherfuckers you meet at a party and within 5 minutes of talking to them start to think to yourself "This guy is really and truly full of shit." They are the people you try to avoid; they are the asshole in the bathroom with the cocaine, who knows no one would talk to him if he didn't have the cocaine. When they are online, they are truly the most odious people to have any interaction with. And they like it that way.

In order to police those kinds of people, you have to interact with them. Short of an insta-kill button with electrodes attached to their real life chao sack, player police will have to deal with the scum of the fucking earth. And while that may sound interesting the first 500 or so times, the 501st time you have to shuttle your player cop ass into the mines because b0n3d00d is azzraping a corpse, you will be begging to be at the helm of the Kevorkian Machine this motherfucker is hooked up to. More than guild leadership, or tech support at an ISP, this will be a thankless job with an odious community that does not reward your good job with anything but scorn and derision. Who wants to pay to endure that kind of suffering? Shit, I'm not sure I understand those who pay to endure the abuse that a guild leader takes, and you want to make an entire class of player that does nothing but deal with immature muffinsnatchers on a day to day basis and pays for the privilege?

Player accountability can only work through hard-coded restrictions on anti-community behavior followed up by a PAID support staff that investigates and castigates serial griefers FOR THE CHILDREN.

Multi-account player accountability is possible, and don't try to tell me it isn't. It just isn't CHEAP, and since customer support is job last for MMOG development and game companies in general, it won't be a priority unless the installed player base makes it a priority.

[Calandryll]

The problem with most proposed PK solutions is that they focus too much on punishing the PK rather than protecting the victim.

Most miners in UO would tell you they got absolutely no satisfaction from knowing that a PK would suffer stat-loss. Part of that was the fact that the victim had no way of knowing when (or if) the PK took stat loss. And even if they could somehow know the exact moment the PK was killed and how much stats they lost, it didn’t change the fact that the PK ruined hours of resource gathering. The harshness of the PK’s penalty isn’t going to make the victim feel any better about being killed and losing hours of play.

If you want an open PvP game, you have to lessen the pain (at least for non-combatants) from being killed. If I’m a miner and I am killed by a PK maybe I only lose 25% of the resources I have mined and nothing else. This way I don’t lose my shovels, my clothing, etc. and I can get right back to mining pretty quickly. Or perhaps give me the option to instantly teleport back to town if I am PKed so I don’t have to run for 10 minutes to get ressed (this has the added bonus of letting me avoid the smack talk too). I’m sure you can pick apart either of those, but you get the idea.

I’ve never liked the idea of punishing players for playing your game. It doesn’t make any sense. I’m not talking about exploiting or griefing, those people aren’t “playing”, they are just being disruptive and they should be removed. But for game systems like PKing, you can implement harsher and harsher punishments for doing it in order to curtail it, but then why bother having it in the game in the first place? Or you can implement penalties that are nothing more than a nuisance, but then all you’re doing is annoying your player-base while not preventing them from continuing to PK anyway. Either way, no level of punishment resolves the real problem.

I am in no way against the idea of having PKs in a game. But at the end of the day, it’s the victims who are going to quit if being killed is too painful. Spend more time thinking from the victim’s perspective rather than the PK’s.

[Alkiera]

The type of thing I'm envisioning is a closer mapping between what happens when crimes occur in (an ideal)real-life, and what happens in game.  If you kill someone and steal their stuff, then get caught, you get some penalty from the court, which may well include reparations, IRL to the family of the deceased, in a game you can actually make reparations to the one you killed.  

Frankly, I think as a griefer, it'd be more fun to be the crimnal who does stuff and gets away with it, thus becoming notorious, which would draw larger manhunts, maybe bounty hunters (Which wouldn't be exploited so much if the requirement was 'capture and bring to cops', rather than just 'kill', to get the reward.)  I'm thinking like "Catch Me if You Can" here, or any other similar movie.  However, ideally most criminals would be caught.

As far as the victims go, yes, there needs to be some modification of systems so that those who don't wish to be attacked can go about their business with some modicum of safety, tho I agree with Azeroth, I think, when they stated that rewards for the miners should be comensurate to risks taken.  So mining in the safe dungeon is not as effective/profitable as mining in less protected areas.  Perhaps 'safe' mining locations could be run by companies who provide guards both at the entrance and regularly throughout the inside, but require some percentage off the top to pay for the guards.

Just something I've noticed about crafters (having played one and knowing many), they generally don't like being fucked with while resource gathering. Look, it's boring, so they just want to get the damn thing over with as soon as possible. Sure they don't want Sir Miner Ganker killing and not being penalized, but they just as soon never even be bothered by the bastard in the first place.

The actual process of getting materials is one of those systems that needs to be changed.  Not sure how yet, but something that ends up like SWG, where high-end crafters find it better to just buy materials from those who harvest it, rather than harvest themselves, and new crafters harvest it themselves due to economics, but with more continuity than SWG harvesters...  Some kind of combination of SWG and Horizons.

--
Alkiera

[Nyght]

I don't think that any of this really gets to the problems of PK (non-consentual PvP) for me.

Its all about time. My time. Real time.

If I get a few measily hours to log in and play, I want to decide what game to play today. PvM, Craft, Resource Gather, Train, Socialize, or PvP... whatever. My choice. Not yours.

I don't really give a rat's ass what you do to the guy that disrupted my play. That doesn't change my lost time.

I think we have seen the solution actually. Zoned or Area PvP switches seem to work the best. DAOC for example. No obscure rules, TEFs etc.

As long as there is enough non-PvP+ content areas to keep everybody reasonably happy (< notice reasonable). There can be incentives in the PvP+ area as long as they are not really lopsided.

The bottom line that you won't like: I don't want my world effected (too much?) by your play. Effect the shit out of each other... I dont care. Leave me the hell alone.

Thanks for listening. Back to the rules now eh?

[Alkiera]

If I get a few measily hours to log in and play, I want to decide what game to play today. PvM, Craft, Resource Gather, Train, Socialize, or PvP... whatever. My choice. Not yours.

I don't really give a rat's ass what you do to the guy that disrupted my play. That doesn't change my lost time.
...
The bottom line that you won't like: I don't want my world effected (too much?) by your play. Effect the shit out of each other... I dont care. Leave me the hell alone.

This would seem to indicate that you want a persistant single-player game.  If other players can't affect your world, they might as well not be there.  I would be willing to agree that 'persistant single-player world' games is an under-represented genre in computer/console gaming. I think Harvest Moon might be one example.

I think we have seen the solution actually. Zoned or Area PvP switches seem to work the best. DAOC for example. No obscure rules, TEFs etc.

As long as there is enough non-PvP+ content areas to keep everybody reasonably happy (< notice reasonable). There can be incentives in the PvP+ area as long as they are not really lopsided.

Thanks for listening. Back to the rules now eh?

Frankly, I'm not interested in keeping everybody happy.  I'm interested in keeping a target audience happy, which may or may not include you.  I agree with others here that the giant 400+k account games are not the future of MMOGs.  It's hard to get that many people to agree enough on how things should be done to stick around longer than the free month, especially if your game actually introduces something non-stock-standard.

--
Alkiera

[HaemishM]

Actually, I think what Nyght is saying is not so much that he wants to never be affected by another person. I think he wants to be able to CHOOSE when he will be and won't be subject to being affected negatively by other people. How that's done is up to debate, but I think for MMOG's to be more "mass-market" (or at least as mass-market as a subscription-based game will be), this has to be a priority. PVP is fine with most people, even those who tip the scale way towards PVE-only, so long as they get the CHOICE to participate or not to participate.

[daveNYC]

The question is how many miner types are going to be OK with the danger of being jumped?  With games like ATITD being targeted at the crafting/resource gathering player, is the "miner who likes to be hunted" player a large enough demographic to be worth going after?

[Calandryll]

The question is how many miner types are going to be OK with the danger of being jumped?  With games like ATITD being targeted at the crafting/resource gathering player, is the "miner who likes to be hunted" player a large enough demographic to be worth going after?

That's a good question. I think if the rewards for going into a dangerous area are worth it, then yes, there may be miners who are willing to risk it.

But that's exactly why I said we need to look at the issue from the perspective of the victim. If you determine that nothing will make the typical miner OK with being attacked, then you've answered the question about whether to put in the ability to do so. If we continue to only look at ways to punish the PKs (which unfortunately is the most common answer) we'll never come to any meaningful conclusions.

[Nyght]

This would seem to indicate that you want a persistant single-player game.  If other players can't affect your world, they might as well not be there.  I would be willing to agree that 'persistant single-player world' games is an under-represented genre in computer/console gaming. I think Harvest Moon might be one example.

Well ya know, I've found it damn hard to find much of a player economy or PvM group hunts or socializing in those single player games.

But H has is right. Choice is the answer.

As to "I like to be jumped miners", I think you can probably find a handfull on any UO shard in Felucca. But it is really a small percentage of the player base.

Because this is as simple as including resources at a slightly higher production rate in PvP+ areas, I see no reason not to include this playstyle in a game.

As development priorities go, I would sure rather have an interesting and bug free combat mechanics then PvP Miners.

I'll bet even the miners would agree.

[Sky]

They are the people you try to avoid; they are the asshole in the bathroom with the cocaine, who knows no one would talk to him if he didn't have the cocaine.

Bwhaha, that's a great reference. Having lived in so many band houses and having so many, many parties, I can't count how many times we've kicked 'that guy's' ass. We didn't need him for coke, heh. Once had a guy lock himself in our bathroom after he spent the money we had given him for an 8ball on crack. He had the nuts to give us some crushed up crack rocks, then go lock himself in our bathroom and smoke crack.

That's why bands have security, kids. I'm sure he couldn't walk for months. That's what's lacking in mmogs. Someone to break legs.

Anyway, good post Hammy.

Miners. I played a blacksmith in UO, I mined a LOT. Traditional mining, cave mining, boat mining. I've been pk'd by more morons than I can hope to remember, I even tell them I'll make them armor if they don't kill me, heh. Dumbasses. As far as the ability to be killed while mining, only if there is some really kickass ore! That's why I said there should have been an option for mining in justice zones, so you could do your day-to-day mining without worrying about some dickhead coming along and wanking himself all over you.

I liked the unpredictability and fear in UO, but there are times when it was going too far, like when mining. My point is rather than create a mirror (not a mirror!), a more eloquent solution would have been to create more areas like Cove, where you could gather resources in relative peace (it was the getting to and from that was a bitch on SP, heh). Obviously OSI was painted into a corner with the static 2d map, but hey. If instead of a pvp- mirror we had gotten a new land that was pvp+ but a bit more well laid out...

But that's exactly why I said we need to look at the issue from the perspective of the victim.

I always look at both sides of the issue. I've been a 'pk' (though not an asshole about it) and also a crafter (and everything in between except tamer or bard).

[Riggswolfe]

Your average PK is quite bluntly a sociopath. My perfect world would let them do what they want, but give the victims their home addresses. Then the victims can show up on their doorstop and show them what it's like to be PKed in real life.

To Azaroth:

The good goes with the bad to fuel the rollercoaster of emotions a good online world should be.

The key is to balance things as best you can. You don't want to get PKed, but we can't remove the option to PK. We can, however, punish those PKers suitably and based on their actions instead of their killcount.

I couldn't disagree with this more. People often speak of needing emotions from an online game. I only need one emotion. Fun. Period. That's all I want from an online game. If I want to be angry and frustrated I'll go get a call center job. I do not want to pay my own money to feel these kinds of stressful emotions.

This is why I disagree with Raph's law that says that killing players is always more rewarding than killing AI. For who?

If I have a choice I might participate in PvP. If I don't have a choice I won't pay to play your game. Period. This also goes for things like SWG, which say you have a choice, but you really don't. What I mean is, if you want to miss two of the biggest parts of the game (Galactic Civil War, Jedi) then yes, you can avoid PvP. Of course, that likes telling me that I don't have to jump from the burning building. I can choose to get burned if I want.

[Wukong]

PKs are not sociopaths. At least no more so than a baseball player who slides hard into second to break up a double play. They are just playing the game, and in most cases, playing well within the rules.

The sociopaths are the designers that make those rules. People who think murder is neccessary for freedom and fear builds strong communities. That is Stallinism, not good game design.

[Zaphkiel]

PKs are not sociopaths. At least no more so than a baseball player who slides hard into second to break up a double play. They are just playing the game, and in most cases, playing well within the rules.

The sociopaths are the designers that make those rules. People who think murder is neccessary for freedom and fear builds strong communities. That is Stallinism, not good game design.

   I think you're confusing sociopath with psychopath.  Sociopath just means anti-social.

[Vexatious]

A recurring theme here seems to be that players are motivated by various forms of drama.  I'm not referring to it in the "tell me a story" sense, but rather abstractly as the presence and resolution of a conflict.  This includes everything from PvP to the process of leveling and equipping a character to starting crusades on message boards.  Everywhere players are passionate about something, there's a conflict involved.  Fun game mechanics are fun because they resolve interesting conflicts in a fair and entertaining way.

The fundamental problem, though, is that my actual or threatened suffering is not good entertainment.  Other people's suffering, and the methods they (or I) use to end it, are.  Movies and books solve this issue handily by taking us out of the equation.  Games put us back in, and so emerges the problem of how to motivate players to play without making them uncomfortable enough to quit.  Putting players in the same situations as movie characters (without softening the rules) would result mostly in frustrated players.

Early UO was incredibly dramatic, but it only works when there's a perception that the outcome isn't predetermined.  For a lot of players, the day they realized that they'd never be able to compete with those they'd come to hate was the day they left.  On the other end, a lot of players find more gentle games to be boring for basically the same reason -- choosing fights wisely means you'll never lose.  No uncertainty means no tension means no drama means no fun.  The problem is, though, that introducing this uncertainty means that sometimes things will turn out unfavorably, and the same threat that makes the game interesting is the one that makes it painful.

So far, every multiplayer game I've played has either addressed this problem with the form "everyone wins" or "the top 20% beat the hell out of everyone else, who are promised that if they work hard enough they'll be in the top 20% someday".  Both leave the majority of the playerbase bored or frustrated, and if they stay it's only out of a hope that someday they'll be uniquely positioned to do something noteworthy.  

It's like awards day at a grade school.  Everyone wants to walk away with a certificate that says they're somehow unique in a good way -- that they have a place in the world, and a role to play in the dramatic events that shape it.  Most current games only have a few awards to give out, though.

[Wukong]

I think you're confusing sociopath with psychopath.  Sociopath just means anti-social.

Just for the record, Merriam-Webster shares my confusion. In fact sociopath means a great deal more than just anti-social. Sort of like narcolepsy means more than just tired.

[eldaec]

One place an element of player justice does work is ATITD.

Admittedly it relies on two things....

1) Devs being willing to code in laws agreed by the players, and once coded these are system enforced.

2) On the rare occaisions the legal system is used for punishment after the fact rather than prevention ahead of the fact, the devs being willing to do anything up to and including outright ban people if it passes the vote. (lesser sentences have also passed, including one occaision where a player was renamed from 'douchebag' to 'flower')

Also worth noting that this is players acting as judge, jury, and legislature. The sentences and enforcement is actually carried out by devs.

[daveNYC]

Has anyone figured out if ATITD has a smaller percentage of idiots in the playerbase, or if it's just that the idiots haven't hit that critical number needed to be truely annoying?

[Sky]

The fundamental problem, though, is that my actual or threatened suffering is not good entertainment.

Thief:Deadly Shadows.

I was basically Garrett in early UO and loved every minute of it. Exploits aside, pvp wasn't the problem with pks, it was the will to annoy and frustrate others by attacking miners and rp weddings and whatnot. And imo those were relatively small problems that could have been dealt with easily, in the framework of game fiction, even. Instead we got Trammel, something neither side really wanted (anyone who wanted Trammel actually wanted to be playing EQ imo).

And yes, killing a person is so much more rewarding and exciting than killing AI. I never get very excited playing against AI, in any game. Because it sucks ass in general and is quite stupid and rudimentary. I guess if your necessary challenge level is a drooling retard in a safety helmet, than AI fits the bill for you. For me, I'd rather go up against humans who are laying ambushes, can retreat realistically, who can be fooled, etc.

[tar]

And yes, killing a person is so much more rewarding and exciting than killing AI. I never get very excited playing against AI, in any game. Because it sucks ass in general and is quite stupid and rudimentary. I guess if your necessary challenge level is a drooling retard in a safety helmet, than AI fits the bill for you. For me, I'd rather go up against humans who are laying ambushes, can retreat realistically, who can be fooled, etc.

Just to offer an alternative perspective, I don't like going up against human opponents because I actively dislike beating other people and neither do I enjoy being beaten. So direct PvP is basically a no-win for me no matter who 'wins'. I'd always rather go up against an AI, this way I don't feel bad when I win or quite as pissed off when I lose.

[Sky]

Apropos, the difference between pvp and pks is sportsmanship.

[Zaphkiel]

I think you're confusing sociopath with psychopath.  Sociopath just means anti-social.

Just for the record, Merriam-Webster shares my confusion. In fact sociopath means a great deal more than just anti-social. Sort of like narcolepsy means more than just tired.

   Sociopath replaced psychopath as the general term for the disorder.  Psychopath implies violent.  Sociopath doesn't.   I thought you were saying he was implying they were violent.

[AOFanboi]

This would seem to indicate that you want a persistant single-player game.  If other players can't affect your world, they might as well not be there.

If someone goes out to meet people and perhaps have meaningful discussions about baseball, they are not going out to be beaten up by drunk frat jocks. You cannot simply say that "no PvP = no interaction", it's never that simple. There are a myriad of ways "other players can affect your world" that don't involve ganking.

Because this is as simple as including resources at a slightly higher production rate in PvP+ areas, I see no reason not to include this playstyle in a game.

EVE does this. You want to mine 'roids for that rare and expensive ore? It's in that pirate-infested, low-security system over there.

[Dark Vengeance]

Just to offer an alternative perspective, I don't like going up against human opponents because I actively dislike beating other people and neither do I enjoy being beaten. So direct PvP is basically a no-win for me no matter who 'wins'. I'd always rather go up against an AI, this way I don't feel bad when I win or quite as pissed off when I lose.

Just to play Devil's advocate....then why are you playing a multiplayer game? Moreover, why play one where direct competition (not necessarily via PVP) is certain to take place?

It always comes back to pride and shame. PvP is pride and shame taken to its greatest degree, and defeat is made even more humbling by the cumulative character nature found in most MMOGs.

But hey, I suppose I experienced your sentiments briefly as a kid....one time when I played little league, I felt bad for the opposing pitcher after I went yard on his ass for a last-inning game winner. But at some point, you either have to accept it, or go back to tee-ball....because if I imagine how the pitcher would have felt if he had struck me out that day, I know that he was taking the same risk I did, seeking the same reward.

The reward is pride, the risk is shame.....always has been, always will be.

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

[Sky]

I disagree. I'm not a sore loser because I feel no shame in losing. It's a game, someone's going to win, someone's going to lose. As long as the winner beats me fairly using sportsmanship, I don't mind. I can lose and have fun if it was a fair fight.

I also get no pride in winning, just a different kind of fun.

[Alkiera]

This would seem to indicate that you want a persistant single-player game.  If other players can't affect your world, they might as well not be there.

If someone goes out to meet people and perhaps have meaningful discussions about baseball, they are not going out to be beaten up by drunk frat jocks.

That doesn't prevent someone from coming to the discussion to yell "Baseball suck, your all pricks for likeing such a gay sport, rugby > all!!!!111!" over and over again.  Or any other similar obnoxious behavior that is allowed by the system in PvP- games.  And in real life you can't just /ignore them.  They affect your world.

You cannot simply say that "no PvP = no interaction", it's never that simple. There are a myriad of ways "other players can affect your world" that don't involve ganking.

Agreed, as above.  But Nyght didn't say 'I don't want people to interrupt my mining by killing me', he said, "I don't want my world effected (too much?) by your play."  Then was stated that the reason he doesn't find single-player games fulfilling are the lack of three things, player economy, PvE group hunting, and socializing.  All of these allow for grief play, if there are other players.  I can disrupt a player economy by opening a shop next to yours, selling the same goods for 1/2 or 1/4 the price, or giving them away for free, because I want to, or just to piss you off(SWG).  I can disrupt your social time by standing around saying/broadcasting dumb stuff, using animated emotes with annoying whistle noises you can't /ignore(CoH).  In PvE, KS'ing, camp/mob stealing, and training are great ways to affect your world in ways that cannot be removed without removing me(EQ).

Every 'non-PvP' MMOG to date has had PvP...   just not PvP COMBAT.  If you think the PvP in EQ doesn't generate the same bad feelings and pissed of people that it does in Shadowbane, or UO:Felucca, you are sadly mistaken.  And I'm pretty sure that PvP issues in non-'PvP' worlds have caused more lost time for the players involved than any number of hours lost due to PK's in UO.

In summary, 'MMO' implies some form of PvP.  In many cases, PvP is not about direct combat, but rather competition for respect, customers, resources, targets, attention, etc.  If there are other players(where by 'other', I mean outside you and your desired groupmates/friends), there IS PvP.

--
Alkiera

[ajax34i]

So what?  You can broaden the definition of "pvp" to include "Logging into any game" or "Getting on the Internet" and then starting from there you can disprove any point.

Reduce it back to "non-consentual PK" which is what most people here are talking about, and statements make sense.  Nyght said that he doesn't want his world affected by a PK's play, which is usually "pkill!", so he did mean he didn't want to be interrupted by someone killing him.

[daveNYC]

This would seem to indicate that you want a persistant single-player game.  If other players can't affect your world, they might as well not be there.

If someone goes out to meet people and perhaps have meaningful discussions about baseball, they are not going out to be beaten up by drunk frat jocks.

That doesn't prevent someone from coming to the discussion to yell "Baseball suck, your all pricks for likeing such a gay sport, rugby > all!!!!111!" over and over again.

The strange thing about real life is that people don't feel the same need to channel their inner asshole that they feel on the internet.

[Nebu]

The strange thing about real life is that people don't feel the same need to channel their inner asshole that they feel on the internet.

The anonymity that the internet brings certainly does bring out the worst in some people.  Perhaps it's the lack of accountability that creates an atmosphere where people are rude beyond their normal boundaries.

As asked earlier in this thread, I'm not sure if the improved behavior that I've seen in ATitD was because the intellect of the clientel was better or if it was because the nature of the game made your online personna's reputation more important.  Either way, there is something to be said for games where the average player is more enjoyable to interact with.  Building accountability into an mmog is a difficult thing... I think single-player-per-server accounts are a step in the right direction, but they do come at a cost.

[Dark Vengeance]

I disagree. I'm not a sore loser because I feel no shame in losing. It's a game, someone's going to win, someone's going to lose. As long as the winner beats me fairly using sportsmanship, I don't mind. I can lose and have fun if it was a fair fight.

I also get no pride in winning, just a different kind of fun.

In every conflict there is triumph and defeat. To some degree, people take a measure of pride in winning, and suffer some measure of shame in losing. That's why competitors try to win.

You don't have to do touchdown dances over a win, or smash your monitor when you lose to experience either. In either case, you can still have fun....and most do, which is why folks stick around even after having a negative experience with PvP.

Even if both players are a good sport about it, when 2 people are trying their best to win and they are beaten, it bruises the ego just a tad, if you have any sort of emotional investment in the character or the game. It may even come in the form of being annoyed with yourself over making a mistake....but it's there.

Winning feels better than losing....pride and shame is the catalyst behind that. That doesn't automatically preclude anyone from having fun, nor does it suggest that people cannot display good sportsmanship.

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that good sportsmanship is CONCEALING pride and shame for the sake of continued good-spirited competition. You keep the trash talk to yourself after you dunk on somebody, just as you play out the game even if your team is down by a wide margin. Doesn't mean winning isn't good or that losing doesn't suck balls.

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

[Dark Vengeance]

If someone goes out to meet people and perhaps have meaningful discussions about baseball, they are not going out to be beaten up by drunk frat jocks.

You have to be aware of the risks you are taking within the context of the game....if you are going out to meet people and have meaningful discussions about baseball, you may want to consider that you shouldn't be going to a raging frathouse kegger to do so.

Maybe the fantasy baseball squad is sitting in the basement of the dorm poring over statistics, eating cheetos, and drinking gatorade for no particular reason. At some point you've got to either go hang with the fucking fantasy baseball geeks, or admit that you're having more fun at the kegger, even with those annoying drunken fratboys running around the place.

It's not as if you don't have a metric fuckton of options either way at this point.

You cannot simply say that "no PvP = no interaction", it's never that simple. There are a myriad of ways "other players can affect your world" that don't involve ganking.

Many of which are negative, as well as positive. And the bitch of it is that you cannot block the negative interaction without inhibiting the positive.

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

[Sky]

Yeah, see, that's why I was just talking about my own feelings on the matter. Winning and losing are not even important to me, it's playing the game and having fun. I realize that I am in the vast majority when I express my opinions, but that doesn't make it any less valid an opinion.

The anonymity that the internet brings certainly does bring out the worst in some people.

Oddly, beginning with my very first online game, UO, I've always seen the anonymity of the internet as a chance to be a /better/ person than I am in real life, and let that leak over into reality so I know that I'm a good person even when I can get away with not being very nice at all. It's pretty empowering stuff. I also realize that I'm in the vast minority on that one, too ;)

To sum up, I'd rather lose a good fight honestly to a good opponent than win a fight by nefarious or unsportsmanlike tactics or by fighting a weaker opponent. Of course one tries to win, that's the point of the excercise. But the actual outcome has little to no effect on my enjoyment of a game.

[Heresiarch]

When I lose at chess, or sports, I feel, with a good deal of certainty, that the other player played better than I did that day.  I might even learn something about the game in the process.  With MMOGs, when I lose, I feel, with a great deal of certainty, that the other person was a better exploiter/cheater/macroer/bigger catass than I am.

I quit playing chess competetively when I realized that the catasses would always outplay me. I didn't want to dedicate 15 hours a week to getting better at chess.

It's only at the amateur level that some degree of 'smart play' makes one better at chess. It's the same with volleyball, basketball, softball, baseball, and the rest. Dedicated hobbyists play five or six nights a week, and sometimes all-day Saturday and/or Sunday. They'll go to the batting cages a couple times a week. They work hard on their game. I can't compete with them; no amount of smart play, fitness, or agility is going to let me beat them.

But it's socially acceptable to play games outside all day; playing games inside all day is catassing.

So the important bit here is: games where playing a bit smarter provides an edge are fun and well-balanced. If an opponent plays a whole bunch, they can gain a ton of skill, to the point where they can easily smash an opponent. Some games, such as golf and go, provide a way for handicapping, which can make an imbalanced contest fun for both sides.