The Laws of Online Gaming Revisited...

[Alkiera]

The scenarios weren't perfect (they initially took too long to make) but they were a step in the direction you are talking about. They were also a great way to add new content to the game. It’s too bad the scenarios were stopped just as they started gaining popularity.

The main complaint we got from players about the scenarios though (aside from the delay in getting new ones out) was that they didn't feel "involved" enough. Fact is, players WANT to be the main hero. We can tell them that MMOGs don't support that, but it won't change the fact that they want it.

EA seemed to be rather fond of killing things related to UO that players seemed to think were a good idea, for unknown reasons.

As far as players wanting to be the 'main hero'...  That's what single player RPGs are about.  You can dangle a carrot for some of these people by giving out some kind of title or item or something to indicate participation in a given event to the person/group that kills the big boss, solves the final puzzle, kills the most of the opposing force, etc...  but then you get claims of favoritism on the part of the game staff who make those awards.  

People want to be the main hero, be something everyone can't be...  AND they don't want to be locked out of something, don't want there to be something that someone else has done, and therefore they can't do.  They can't have it both ways in a single player game.  Either there is 'single use' content, like EQ events, or 'The Sleeper' in EQ; or there isn't, and everyone is just a cog.  You can't have it both ways.

--
Alkiera

[Roac]

Actually, this is exactly the kind of story telling we did with the scenarios in UO a few years back.

Probably started up right after I quit UO :/  Sorry I missed it.

The main complaint we got from players about the scenarios though (aside from the delay in getting new ones out) was that they didn't feel "involved" enough. Fact is, players WANT to be the main hero. We can tell them that MMOGs don't support that, but it won't change the fact that they want it.

Maybe after a couple rounds you guys could've figured out some things to tweak that a bit, but bottom line is what they want isn't doable.  Someone's a hero only if a LOT of people aren't, because it requires a lot of non-heros to view them as a hero.  Only real escape from that trap is if you have NPCs viewing you as a hero.  Say for example, you somehow track a player's history in a quest system, in mobs they kill or NPCs they assist - whatever, and through that build up a history for the player that has game applications.  

UO's virtue system gets at this somewhat.  You could add some things like having NPCs recognize you and such, or having NPC guilds/cities/outlaw bands/whatever show public favor toward their hero.  Wouldn't it be cool to be the patron Hero of Occlo?  You're still running ingo the same wall though, in that there is only so much public display of heroism that you can do before the title has no value.

[El Gallo]

Best thread in forever.


I have always thought that this law:

Game Systems
No matter what you do, players will decode every formula, statistic, and algorithm in your world via experimentation.

was disproven, surprisingly enough, by everyone's favorite number-driven stat builder, Everquest.  Despite literally years of hardcore parsing and analysis, there are a number of rather basic combat formulas that are unknown to the playerbase.  Just a couple months ago, some developer let it slip that sheilds increase your AC softcap.  Who knew?  Nobody.

For obvious reasons, this rule is what creates the treadmill and it needs to be replaced with something else. I’m not sure what at the moment

"Treadmills are teh stupid and they need to be replaced with some magical cool thing that neither I nor anyone else can articulate" posts were old five years ago.

Solution: Don’t let players run the economy. Give weight to whatever the currency is so they can only carry so much if it. Allow players to have a vault that can store items but not currency. Do not offer them banks. Just because the real world has them doesn’t mean that online worlds should as well.

Not a solution.  There is nothing magical about currency.  This will just lead to a barter-driven economy (see: Asherons Call) which will have the same problems as a cash-driven one, except that trading will be annoying as hell to boot.

If your game is narrow, it will fail.
Your game design must be expansive. Even the coolest game mechanic becomes tiresome after a time. You have to supply alternate ways of playing or alternate ways of experiencing the world. Otherwise, players will go to another world where they can have new experiences. This means new additions, or better yet, completely different subgames embedded in the actual game.

I have never been sure how expansive this law is supposed to be.  If it means your game should be a solo action/group combat/PvP/PvP/crafting/RPing etc etc game, I disagree.  KISS.  Do one thing well before you start branching off.  This genre is yet to create a truly great PvE game OR a truly great PvP game.  Trying to do both at the same time is a recipe for disaster.  In other words...

You'll end up with one game with a highly polished combat model, another with a fantastic tradeskills model, and each game will be one-note.

At this point, EITHER of those games would be an enormous improvement over what we have now.  You cannot go from EQ and UO and SB to "EQ+UO+SB Done Right."  Hell, the last 5 years of the industry have been people trying to make:

a-EQ done right
b-some combo of EQ and UO done right

and they have all failed.  We get game after game after game of "EQ done worse."  WoW, which looks like it just might pull off "EQ done much better" will be the first real bit of progress this genre as had.  And here is the most influential person in online gaming poo-pooing it because it hasn't incorporated every lesson since 1996 and is not trying to be EQ+SWG+UO+Civ2+SB+Counterstrike.  That's what Blizzard has done RIGHT.

In short, evolution > mutation.  As I said somewhere else, evolution is mostly responsible for bringing us the glory of the natural world.  Mutations almost always end in spontaneous abortion.  GIVE UP the "we must reform the world from its very foundations" attitude.  Raph, here's your assignment: give me trammel done right in the next 20 years.  I'll have Blizzard working on EQ done right and maybe someone else working on SB done right.  THEN when we are old men we can start theorizing about how they go together.

You cannot go from The Great Train Robbery to the IMAX version of Attack of the Clones (just speaking on its technical merits here) in one step, and if directors in 1904 had sat around doing nothing but attempt after attempt at making AotC on IMAX we never would have gotten to The Jazz Singer.

Raph, please, get your people to chip away at things and maybe we will see the MMOG version of The Jazz Singer in our lifetime.  
 

various meaningful pvp posts

Winning and Losing: You can't have this in persistant worlds.  It is no accident that in every competitive game or sport, you reset the board and start the next game at 0-0.  Persistence plus meaningful (i.e. winners and losers) PvP is simply not possible.  You either have to give up persistence by wiping the board, or you can give up on meaningfulness by not having real winners and losers.   Compare US Government vs Native Americans, meaningfulness + persistence, and you will never have a competitive battle between those two again  with Pittsburgh Steelers vs Cleveland Browns, meaningfulness but no persistence where the Steelers get no advantage for having won 4 Super Bowls in the past to the Browns' zero, allowing a theoretically even matchup later with a MOG where PvP gives you ladder points but no in-game benefit, persistence but no meaningfulness, and also allows future competition.

Show me a MMOG that doesn't devolve into perma-winners, that has meaningful PvP, and does not wipe the board, and I'll show you a dev team that is hiding the ball.

[Alkiera]

Maybe after a couple rounds you guys could've figured out some things to tweak that a bit, but bottom line is what they want isn't doable.  Someone's a hero only if a LOT of people aren't, because it requires a lot of non-heros to view them as a hero.  Only real escape from that trap is if you have NPCs viewing you as a hero.  Say for example, you somehow track a player's history in a quest system, in mobs they kill or NPCs they assist - whatever, and through that build up a history for the player that has game applications.

CoH does this to a certain extent...  if you click on the random NPCs in the city, they'll say different things, sometimes referencing your exploits as a hero.  Those things are only displayed client-side, I think, at least as much as I don't think others can see them, the things they say aren't actually in a chat channel, just a chat balloon.  It seems to help a bit with immersion, in that people around town seem to realize you're doing stuff to help them,  but only so much so, as no one else hears it, so the other players don't hear how great a hero you are.

UO's virtue system gets at this somewhat.  You could add some things like having NPCs recognize you and such, or having NPC guilds/cities/outlaw bands/whatever show public favor toward their hero.  Wouldn't it be cool to be the patron Hero of Occlo?  You're still running ingo the same wall though, in that there is only so much public display of heroism that you can do before the title has no value.

This is a good idea, I think, but still runs into the problem of everyone wanting to be the Hero of Occlo...  If the way to get that title is a normal quest, no matter how hard, eventually there will be dozens, hundreds of Heroes of Occlo...  Which makes the value of being one notably reduced.  Witness the number of people wearing shawls personally blessed by the Avatar of Brell Sirelis in EQ.

If it's not a normal quest, then others see the Hero of Occlo as someone who is not special in any way other than just being in the right place at the right time, or lucky to be chosen by the event staff.  This also reduces the value of being the Hero of Occlo.  The only other way to assign the hero title that I can come up with off the cuff is by kills of enemies of Occlo, or something, so that whoever tops the chart is currently the Hero of Occlo...  Which seems kinda silly, but might work, except that if it's a strict funtion of kills, catasses will be the only ones with titles.  I'm a firm believer that nothing in game should be merely a funtion of time played, so that method isn't really attractive to me.

--
Alkiera

[Riggswolfe]

Players housing != civilized areas. Yknow why? BECAUSE YOU CAN PUT THEM DAMN NEAR EVERYWHERE. You can sail close to houses, you can easily come upon them while walking through the wilderness. It's not as if UO had zoned housing developments or anything....you could put them anywhere they'd fit.

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

So again, we're supposed to feel sorry for PKs because they might experience what to them feels like a seemingly random death that strips all their fun and is out of their control? Sounds familiar to me. They'd just have to avoid houses. Sorry. No sympathy from me.

[Dark Vengeance]

So again, we're supposed to feel sorry for PKs because they might experience what to them feels like a seemingly random death that strips all their fun and is out of their control? Sounds familiar to me. They'd just have to avoid houses. Sorry. No sympathy from me.

The difference, of course, is that when a PK attacks another player, the victim has a fighting chance at survival and (albeit slim) victory. Please explain to me where a PK has a fighting chance against random insta-kill lightning bolts from the sky.

See, that's my beef with the whole argument...folks with the "no sympathy" response don't want a fair fight, they don't want justice, they just want a non-PvP game.

IMO, if you want a non-PVP game, take your pick....you have plenty of options on the market. Leave the PvP-enabled games for those who WANT the fair fight, and WANT their opponents to have a fighting chance.

And for the record, "avoid housing" in a game like UO means avoid 80% of the overworld map. At which point, you may as well just outlaw PKing, or insist that reds cannot leave the dungeon server.

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

[daveNYC]

IMO, if you want a non-PVP game, take your pick....you have plenty of options on the market. Leave the PvP-enabled games for those who WANT the fair fight, and WANT their opponents to have a fighting chance.

The problem is the number of players who want PvP, but don't want the fair fight, or their opponents to have a chance.

There's probably a large audience out there for a game that has PvP as a potential danger that can be avoided, or if encountered, escaped from.  I just think they are turned off by the people who are playing 'Quake with swords'.

[El Gallo]

Again, the gist of the law is that it is expensive and probably impossible to supply new content to a large number of gamers (or world participants if you prefer) indefinetly.

Well, we do it anyway, but it's sort of like bumblebees flying. :)

For a fun math workout on it, try this link and get ready to feel depressed:

http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/contentcreation.html

You only really need to make new content for the endgame "on the fly" since (lol) you should ship with more than enough content for people to make it to the endgame (/lol).  That's still a Herculean task, and the best example of this is Everquest, which is starting to fall apart at the top end because they cannot spit out expansions fast enough to keep up with the players, which forces them to spit out buggy, poorly-thought out expansions (hello, Gates of Discord) as fast as possible.  The expansions aren't even finished when released anymore (see the "oopsies" that kept players out of the end zones in PoP, Luclin, and Gates until they were actually implemented), and they increasingly rely on extreme timesinks (Luclin keys, PoP flags) just to slow down the consumption rate.  This (along with the fact that the core systems in EQ weren't designed for nearly this many expansions and are also breaking down) is why so many endgamers have left for WoW or are waiting for Vanguard.  The writing is on the wall that this will be a problem for WoW too, but that's another thread.

Perhaps it is vulgar or naive of me to suggest, but the answer may be just to throw more money at the problem.  These games are priced absurdly low as far as monthly fees are concerned (though you cannot get away with charging much more than your competitors and still attract new customers), and once you have people hooked, you could charge a ton of money for expansions and they would buy them.

The easy way out is randomly generated or modular content.  I *hate* that stuff with a passion.  You cannot randomly generate something worth doing.  Maybe in the future, but not now.  Just say no to SWG and Lost Dungeons of Norrath :)  Say yes to good, handcrafted content with more always awaiting me, and I'll pay for it.  Maybe there aren't enough people like me though.

[Raph]

If your game is narrow, it will fail.
Your game design must be expansive. Even the coolest game mechanic becomes tiresome after a time. You have to supply alternate ways of playing or alternate ways of experiencing the world. Otherwise, players will go to another world where they can have new experiences. This means new additions, or better yet, completely different subgames embedded in the actual game.

I have never been sure how expansive this law is supposed to be.  If it means your game should be a solo action/group combat/PvP/PvP/crafting/RPing etc etc game, I disagree.

No, just different classes in EQ suffices to satisfy the law.

You'll end up with one game with a highly polished combat model, another with a fantastic tradeskills model, and each game will be one-note.

At this point, EITHER of those games would be an enormous improvement over what we have now.

I'd argue that you already have several of the former, and a couple of the latter...?

In short, evolution > mutation.  As I said somewhere else, evolution is mostly responsible for bringing us the glory of the natural world.  Mutations almost always end in spontaneous abortion.

Heh, evolution is driven by mutations. No mutations, no evolution. :)

Raph, here's your assignment: give me trammel done right in the next 20 years.

Hmm, I'd say it's been done several times over by now. Hasn't it? What do you define as "done right"?

Raph, please, get your people to chip away at things and maybe we will see the MMOG version of The Jazz Singer in our lifetime.  

I agree that overambition is a major problem (mostly, my problem. ;) ).

[El Gallo]

Heh, evolution is driven by mutations. No mutations, no evolution. :)

Heh, I was just coming back to edit that out of my post.  You are of course correct there (though there is some Mendellian recombination variation that drives selection too, and I do think that we can get more progress by rearranging [and perfecting, the analogy is flawed] "genes" that are already out there than we could by saying "hey, lets add wings and gills to this cat so we get a cat that can fly and breathe underwater").  Was just making the gradual > revolutionary point, and you know how I love to reiterate.  And repeat myself.

Maybe I am too pessimistic, but I have not seen a game that out-EQ's EQ or out-UO's UO.  The many EQ clones have pretty much been worse than EQ.  On the "Trammel done right" no I haven't seen that either.  The only game close was SWG.  For me "done right" means "noticeably better on most counts, and worse on none."  What is the game that you think is noticeably better than EQ on most counts, and worse than EQ on none of them?  I haven't played FFO, but I have at least dabbled with the other main players.

I mean, I would love UO's free form game (but better!) and EQ's hand crafted content (but better!) and group combat (but better!) combined into the same game.  I would also love to win the Powerball lotto, which I view as equally likely.  Hrmm, maybe the two are related.  If I could put you, McQuaid and a hundred million dollars in a building, maybe El Gallo Online could really happen...

[Riggswolfe]

So again, we're supposed to feel sorry for PKs because they might experience what to them feels like a seemingly random death that strips all their fun and is out of their control? Sounds familiar to me. They'd just have to avoid houses. Sorry. No sympathy from me.

The difference, of course, is that when a PK attacks another player, the victim has a fighting chance at survival and (albeit slim) victory. Please explain to me where a PK has a fighting chance against random insta-kill lightning bolts from the sky.

A PK doesn't have a fighting chance. Neither does a player who has a life outside the game and isn't standing there with 20 of his closest friends waiting to gank anybody they can catch. You also seem to assume I give a flying fuck whether or not the poor witty bitty PK has a good time or not. PvPers are fine. PKs are not. See you're basically trying to get me to feel sympathy for what is essentially a boil on the asshole of MMO's. Hell most PvPers don't even like PKs. (If only because of the negative affect it has had on perceptions of PvP)

See, that's my beef with the whole argument...folks with the "no sympathy" response don't want a fair fight, they don't want justice, they just want a non-PvP game.

IMO, if you want a non-PVP game, take your pick....you have plenty of options on the market. Leave the PvP-enabled games for those who WANT the fair fight, and WANT their opponents to have a fighting chance.

I don't particularly enjoy PvP because so far it always ends up boiling down to the lowest common denominator. However PvP != PK.

And for the record, "avoid housing" in a game like UO means avoid 80% of the overworld map. At which point, you may as well just outlaw PKing, or insist that reds cannot leave the dungeon server.

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

And??? For the Non-PK when UO was at its worst it felt like you almost couldn't leave the city. I disagree with you. Instakill housing guards against PKs is justice and long overdue justice at that.

[Sky]

It's a shame that we still need to make posts like Riggs just made. I agree with you, Riggs, but it's just sad that 7 years later people still need to be told these things.

PVP != PK. PK's getting reamed in the ass by harsh justice measures is A fucking O K.

Unless someone is going to promote grief play as a valid and welcome playstyle? Yes?

[El Gallo]

Socialization requires downtime
Whatever the rewarded activity in your game is, it has to give people time to breathe if you want them to socialize.

This law is true, one of the most important laws, and probably WoW's biggest problem right now.  You literally cannot talk in a group doing an instance, because you are constantly clicking.  Cantinas are not the answer (at least not alone), you need the downtime built into the rewarded activity, like EQ does.  Now, you don't need EQ caliber downtime, but there is a happy medium between EQ on the one hand and WoW/CoH/Diablo on the other.


By the way R.K. (does anyone else feel odd calling someone they have never met by their first name), I don't know if you can answer this but how much influence do you have over EQ2.  The game is looking promising, if they actually do what they say (can't have any real opinion until there is a beta with no NDA of course *cough let me in the beta and I will compare it to WoW myself cough*).  They seem to be devoting a ton of effort on creating atmosphere, which (along with its 'ease up on the overruse of instancing' stance) was the main thing that had me interested in Vanguard aside from its designer.  EQ2 is even getting some good press on the FoH boards, and most of those people hate SoE with the burning power of a thousand suns after GoD.

[Dark Vengeance]

A PK doesn't have a fighting chance. Neither does a player who has a life outside the game and isn't standing there with 20 of his closest friends waiting to gank anybody they can catch.

Bullshit. Anyone who has ever managed to recall out when attacked, or to effectively fight back can tell you different.

You also seem to assume I give a flying fuck whether or not the poor witty bitty PK has a good time or not. PvPers are fine. PKs are not. See you're basically trying to get me to feel sympathy for what is essentially a boil on the asshole of MMO's. Hell most PvPers don't even like PKs. (If only because of the negative affect it has had on perceptions of PvP)

I'm trying to get you to stay the fuck out of non-consentual PvP enabled games, and to stop insisting that EVERY FUCKING GAME CATER TO YOUR PERSONAL TASTES.

If you're going to implement a system that randomly, severely, and permanently punishes PKing, you may as well disallow non-consentual PvP completely in favor of a consentual PvP system. At that point, you've got UO's Trammel.....which is the polar opposite of what many people enjoyed about early UO.

I don't care what you think or feel about PKs, but the systems you're proposing aren't deterrents, they aren't systems for justice, they are simply a way to code in a big "fuck you" to PKs. If that's all you're shooting for, perhaps you should avoid games that even offer non-consentual PvP.

I don't particularly enjoy PvP because so far it always ends up boiling down to the lowest common denominator. However PvP != PK.

So play one of the metric fuckton of games that offer consentual PvP, or don't allow PvP in any form. You currently have plenty of options in that regard. People who don't feel as you do have far more limited options.

And??? For the Non-PK when UO was at its worst it felt like you almost couldn't leave the city. I disagree with you. Instakill housing guards against PKs is justice and long overdue justice at that.

How the fuck is that JUSTICE??

Justice would be someone PKing you, then you or another friend killing the PK and getting your stuff back, plus the PKs items as compensation for your time. Justice would be some loudmouth talking smack, and getting his ass handed to him as a result. Justice would be slaying a thief and getting your items returned to you.

Justice is NOT making everyone that happens to turn red into a KOS immediate instakill by invincible NPC guards, to which there is absolutely no defense. There is no satisfaction about seeing someone get guardwhacked, only a frenzy to loot the corpse, if possible. There is no equitable payback for what you have lost.....just a pissy little way for victims to say "oooh, you're gonna get it eventually" as a PK loots them.

"Just wait until the AI guards show up, then you'll taste justice" not only doesn't really provide justice to the gameworld, it actually undermines PLAYER JUSTICE. You've got a hard coded system that doesn't give a shit if your account was hacked and then used for a killing spree, or doesn't care that you whacked one too many smack talkers, or that someone used an exploit to give you MCs during consentual PvP. Any "punishment" you set up for the PKs will eventually be twisted and used as a device for grief play.

Meanwhile, you've also got a hard-coded set of conditions that real PKs will simply avoid...they'll just set up shop on the dungeon server, and only recall into red-friendly homes....anything that needs to be done in a "civilized" area will simply be done using alts.

But that stuff all requires objective rational thought.....it requires something beyond frothing at the mouth at the very notion of PKs. Once you get past that, let me know, and perhaps we can have a rational discussion on the subject.

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

[Dark Vengeance]

It's a shame that we still need to make posts like Riggs just made. I agree with you, Riggs, but it's just sad that 7 years later people still need to be told these things.

PVP != PK. PK's getting reamed in the ass by harsh justice measures is A fucking O K.

Unless someone is going to promote grief play as a valid and welcome playstyle? Yes?

Since we are reviewing old truths like PvP != PK, maybe it's time to point out that PKing, in and of itself, does not automatically constitute grief play. Nor does a griefer need to PK to grief.

Non-consentual PvP *is* a valid and acceptable playstyle, even welcome by some players.

It's just sad that 7 years later, people STILL can't get past the notion that a particular MMOG might not be intended for them, and perhaps they should stick to the ones that suit their playstyle.

My point is that we **HAVE** games that disallow PKing, or have lumped significant penalties on PKs already. That is the SAFE play....that's the sound business decision to rake in some money on the status quo.

Here I thought we were looking to innovate and improve the genre. If not, they may as well just start selling boxes containing elf pr0n and a moist towel.

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

[El Gallo]

Trying to put PvPers and PvErs into the same game, much less the same server, was a huge but understandable mistake when UO came out.  Now, it is a stupid and unforgivable mistake.  "Oh no, Civ3 players and Counterstrike players are not playing the same game!  Hurry and make some shitty Civ3/Counterstrike hybrid to solve this horrible problem!"  Here are your options: (a) PvE game with or without an optional PvP sideshow; (b) PvP game with or without an optional PvE sideshow.  There is no c.

[Nyght]

Justice would be someone PKing you, then you or another friend killing the PK and getting your stuff back, plus the PKs items as compensation for your time. Justice would be some loudmouth talking smack, and getting his ass handed to him as a result. Justice would be slaying a thief and getting your items returned to you.

Gawd this gets old. But  OK, one more time.

What you describe is certainly not justice to me. It is playing the back and forth fighting game. Which is the game you wanted to play in the first place.

Justice to me would be giving me back my play time and unbroken attention to what I was trying to do at the time I was attacked. But I know of no games that have RL time warps available.

What they do to you I could careless. But if it happens too often, I will find some other game to play. Hence, not a lot of developers will allow that kind of play.

Your right, they do make lots of games for me now. I hope you enjoy your wait for a game that caters to your playstyle. I recommend not holding your breath.

[Dark Vengeance]

One could easily argue that UO was either a or b at various points in its history......c would be a game that is a balance between both styles, including interaction and a symbiotic relationship between them.

Interesting that what you classify as a huge and unforgivable mistake is what a fairly sizable group considers the closest to what they actually wanted out of an MMOG. I'd say there are enough that such a game done well could at least make for a profitable and sustainable niche title.

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

[El Gallo]

DV, not to derail but my point is this.  Currently we have exactly 0 PvE games done right.  Currently we have exactly 0 PvP games done right.  The chance of someone making a PvP/PvE hybrid done right is roughly 0%.  Trying to do so is just like trying to more from The Great Train Robbery to Attack of the Clones.  Ain't gonna happen.  It's overreaching, and ranting against overreaching is about 90% of what I have been doing in this thread :)

I think that "c" is a great goal.  For 2040.  Maybe.

[Dark Vengeance]

Gawd this gets old. But  OK, one more time. What you describe is certainly not justice to me. It is playing the back and forth fighting game. Which is the game you wanted to play in the first place.

No, it's understanding that players have to make their own justice within the community, not ask for a hard coded version of divine intervention to give them some measure of revenge.

Justice to me would be giving me back my play time and unbroken attention to what I was trying to do at the time I was attacked. But I know of no games that have RL time warps available.

So why is the answer allowing, yet severely punishing PKs?? Wouldn't it be smarter to remove PKing completely?

You're making my point for me....such a system isn't justice, it's just automated revenge.

What they do to you I could careless. But if it happens too often, I will find some other game to play. Hence, not a lot of developers will allow that kind of play.

OMG, if my point were a landmine, you'd be dead by now. If such a game doesn't appeal to you....wait for it....PLEASE DON'T PLAY IT. That's okay by me....I actually believe that niche titles are the eventual way to go anyway. What I DO NOT want is for players to stubbornly stick in such a game and instead insist that the devs change the rules to suit their playstyle....or worse, use their bitterness as an excuse to grief others.

History shows that the wholesale threats to leave DON'T result in mass exodus, so much as they result in some players lobbying for the devs to alter the game to match their preferred playstyle. The ones that leave are often ebaying their accounts, which means limited churn.

Your right, they do make lots of games for me now. I hope you enjoy your wait for a game that caters to your playstyle. I recommend not holding your breath.

It's inevitable that devs continue to explore it as a possibility, particularly as the genre moves away from the "EQ-killer million subscriber model", and goes for the niches of untapped segments of the market.

I just don't grasp why folks that claim to be satisfied with the current offerings are debating in a thread which is all about trying to debunk the conventional wisdom that brought us to this point.

I also don't seem to understand why those same folks are arguing against a MMOG being developed that admittedly wouldn't appeal to their playstyle. I mean hell, I didn't care for EQ, even on a conceptual basis.....I didn't rail against it, I just didn't play it.

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

[daveNYC]

...c would be a game that is a balance between both styles, including interaction and a symbiotic relationship between them.

Can't happen, the relationship between PvE and PvP play styles is parasitic, not symbiotic.

[Zaphkiel]

How the fuck is that JUSTICE??

Justice would be someone PKing you, then you or another friend killing the PK and getting your stuff back, plus the PKs items as compensation for your time. Justice would be some loudmouth talking smack, and getting his ass handed to him as a result. Justice would be slaying a thief and getting your items returned to you.

     So there is no justice in the USA, because we never get to do it ourselves?   Bullshit.  
     The house guards system was first proposed to PROTECT the OWNERS of the HOUSE.   So they could recall home without worrying if a bunch of PKs were there to kill them on the doorstep.

[Dark Vengeance]

Can't happen, the relationship between PvE and PvP play styles is parasitic, not symbiotic.

Not in all instances.....just the most obvious one.

For example, think about a PK infested dungeon, a PvE group could bring along some PvPers to watch out for them. In exchange, the PvE group could provide their guardians with excess magic weapons, or other items that can be obtained through PvE.

The guilds I took part in prior to UO:R all had this as part of their strategy. At first, we simply took turns acting as a scout or lookout while others hunted. Later, the more accomplished PvPers in the group took over those roles, while the non-PvPers and PvE oriented templates could hunt in relative safety. It worked pretty well....the guild made a concerted effort to keep us adequately equipped, we preserved their ability to do so.

But it involved sacrifice on both sides....they had to give up some treasure, while we had to give up time, spend a lot of time standing around watching people hunt/mine, and we had to bear the brunt of most PK attacks.

Your point of course is that without PKs, there is no need for protection....and given our character skills and knowledge of combat, we probably could have just gone and hunted on our own (we did make a concerted effort to train guildmates in PvP and/or methods of escaping alive). Both of which are true.....but IMO, that dynamic added to the experience of everyone involved. Obviously, YMMV.

But the threat of PKs did that a lot....it created tight-knit communities between players that had to depend on each other out of true need, which is in direct contrast to the forced grouping of some other MMOGs.

Some embraced it, some rejected it. But once the need was gone, it all fell apart, and in most cases the tight knit communities gave way to solo players (with several mules) and uber-guilds (where players often didn't even know all of the members).

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

[Zaphkiel]

What I DO NOT want is for players to stubbornly stick in such a game and instead insist that the devs change the rules to suit their playstyle....or worse, use their bitterness as an excuse to grief others.

    Just so we're clear.  There are no rules when it comes to PKs.  They insisted on a no-holds barred, anything goes, we'll do what we want and fuck you if you don't agree relationship.  So that's the relationship we have.  
    So if it seems to you that the ones that don't want PKs in a game they are playing are breaking a rule, you're wrong.  There are no rules.  At all.  Anything we want to do to PKs, including insisting that they be coded out of existence, is well withing the rules, because there are no rules.

[Dark Vengeance]

So there is no justice in the USA, because we never get to do it ourselves?   Bullshit.

The PEOPLE do it themselves....the law, government, enforcement are all things done BY THE PEOPLE. We don't simply rely on God to handle it for us, at least not in this life.
 

The house guards system was first proposed to PROTECT the OWNERS of the HOUSE.   So they could recall home without worrying if a bunch of PKs were there to kill them on the doorstep.

Yeah, but that's kind of moot point given that players can now recall directly into their homes, and kick/ban others from the house, isn't it? Also a bit redundant given the existence of Trammel-rulesets as well.

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

[Zaphkiel]

So there is no justice in the USA, because we never get to do it ourselves?   Bullshit.

The PEOPLE do it themselves....the law, government, enforcement are all things done BY THE PEOPLE. We don't simply rely on God to handle it for us, at least not in this life.

    Game Devs are not gods.  Not by a LONG way.  They respond to the will of the players at just about the same rate that elected officials do.  They pander to the majority at about the same rate, too.

[Nyght]

Dark,

Most of what you describe exists in UO today. Zoned areas with open pvp, PvE benefits for entering those areas, Guilds that provide protection for their members while some portion of them hunt for the goodies.

And the result is... Felucca is still basically empty and the overwhelming majority of the playbase is in Trammel.

Open PvP is just not a popular playstyle in these games and since there are plenty of counterstrike/FPS, I don't think you will see a ton of interest in trying to build that into MMORPGs because the cost development is so much higher for these MMOs then the other types of games.

Especially now that the market seems to be in some kind of re-evaluation period after so many flops and disapointments.

I'd like you to get the game you want. Hell, I'd like to have gotten the game I want. I think we are all just saying that it seems very unlikely for anybody to take those kinds of risks to add 10% of the potential playerbase onto their game.

[Dark Vengeance]

Just so we're clear.  There are no rules when it comes to PKs.  They insisted on a no-holds barred, anything goes, we'll do what we want and fuck you if you don't agree relationship. So that's the relationship we have.

The worst of them anyway, yes. Which was why I dedicated my main character in UO to fighting them WITHIN GAME CONTEXTS.

So if it seems to you that the ones that don't want PKs in a game they are playing are breaking a rule, you're wrong.  There are no rules.  At all.  Anything we want to do to PKs, including insisting that they be coded out of existence, is well withing the rules, because there are no rules.

So when to the DoS attacks on all PvP+ games start??

This is a completely asisine premise....you're suggesting that the non-PvPer method of "fighting back" against PKs is now to go into every PvP+ game community and demand that PKing be removed?

Since when did PKs at large take their fight outside of the context of the game?? Keep in mind that exploits, duping, cheating, 3rd party programs, and ebay are NOT exclusive to PvP+ games, or even games that allow PKing.

That'd be like the NFL Quarterback Club asking the NFL to remove DBs from the game because they don't like throwing all of those INTs.

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

[Dark Vengeance]

Game Devs are not gods.  Not by a LONG way.  They respond to the will of the players at just about the same rate that elected officials do.  They pander to the majority at about the same rate, too.

Way to avoid the entire fucking point.....humanity and human society polices itself. We, as a society, do not rely on any outside force to do it for us.

It was a simple analogy...devs create the virtual worlds of MMOGs, God created the world IRL. If you are atheist or agnostic, no problem....substitute "random chance" or "dumb luck" for the word "God".

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

[Dark Vengeance]

Dark,
Most of what you describe exists in UO today. Zoned areas with open pvp, PvE benefits for entering those areas, Guilds that provide protection for their members while some portion of them hunt for the goodies.

And the result is... Felucca is still basically empty and the overwhelming majority of the playbase is in Trammel.

Trust me, you don't want to go down that particular derail.....there are a laundry list of reasons for hunting in Trammel, all of which are in addition to the inherent benefit of it's non-PvP ruleset.

What I'm looking for is something more similiar to pre-UO:R. It's the existence of a large totally safe PvE zone that screws the pooch....because it offers a complete and total alternative to the inherent risks of a PvP+ world.

Open PvP is just not a popular playstyle in these games and since there are plenty of counterstrike/FPS, I don't think you will see a ton of interest in trying to build that into MMORPGs because the cost development is so much higher for these MMOs then the other types of games.Especially now that the market seems to be in some kind of re-evaluation period after so many flops and disapointments.

MMOGs != FPS

Not all PvPers or PKs are bored FPS or RTS fighting game vets. Do we really need to keep going back to these same tired arguments?

Simply dismissing it all as "Open PvP is not popular and never will be" is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The original release of UO was quite popular, even with totally open PvP....it became even more popular when measures were introduced to curb the rampant PKs, but still left non-consentual PvP as a viable playstyle. After implementing it's non-PvP zone, the growth stalled, and the population has even shrunk at certain times.

Shadowbane? Hmph. Most folks outside of the PvP hardcores didn't jump into the game that played to CRUSH. Imagine that?

For the business side, there is a niche for a game that allows non-consentual PvP throughout the gamworld, but does not make PvP the central focus of the game. In a lot of ways, it goes back to what made UO popular....many systems lacked DEPTH, but the game offered such immense BREADTH that players had lots of other things to try if they got bored.

After all, a great deal of what is wrong with the market today is that it is being saturated with games that aren't appreciably different from one another. They are trying to pillage marketshare form one another, instead of trying to capture customers that aren't currently playing MMOGs. The success of CoH....one of the most casual friendly MMOGs to date....is a great example of a unique offering pulling in new customers and expanding the genre.

I'd like you to get the game you want. Hell, I'd like to have gotten the game I want. I think we are all just saying that it seems very unlikely for anybody to take those kinds of risks to add 10% of the potential playerbase onto their game.

This is based on a faulty premise.....one that suggests that 90% of the players are interested in PvE exclusively, that the game is going for the uber-mass audience, and that no publisher would try a game with widespread non-consentual PvP.

Based on this premise, you're precluding that the type of game I want could (or should) ever be made. Ironically, the game I'm looking for isn't quite so different from a game I used to play back in 1998....yknow, the one that proved this genre was commercially viable.

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

[Zaphkiel]

Since when did PKs at large take their fight outside of the context of the game?? Keep in mind that exploits, duping, cheating, 3rd party programs, and ebay are NOT exclusive to PvP+ games, or even games that allow PKing.

    Not being exclusive does not mean they are not taking the fight outside the context.  It just means other people did it, too.  And no group used UOExtreme as much as PKs did.  They JUMPED at the chance to get an advantage, inside the game and out.  Didn't matter to them.  Doesn't matter to me.  
   Comparing the rules of a game, to the laws of the universe is an inherently flawed argument.  One can change, one can't.

[Sky]

You honestly think that people enjoy non-consentual pvp? Yes, people love being victims, and pks need victims, not opponents.

That's retarded. It's also why we don't have any non-consentual pvp games excepting our Korean friends. Maybe Korea is the place for you, la~

I like pvp games, I play pvp games, I prefer pvp. It's the mutual pinnacle of online gaming, roleplaying fused with pvp. Each without the other is not a very good thing.

Anyone worth their salt in pvp should prefer a fight against an evenly matched opponent, not someone who isn't looking for a fight, which is the only difference between consentual and non-consentual pvp. You want to victimize people, and then get surprised when people scorn you for it?

But you get a rise out of pissing people off, so hey, it's cool, right? People like you are what's holding mature pvp back. People like you are the reason the genre can't move forward.

As has been pointed out, there is still Felucca, but what you don't get are victims, because everyone entering Felucca knows to be ready for a fight. I can only think that you want to victimize people.

But if after all this time you still don't understand how the best mmorpg ever was ruined, you never will and I'm done addressing the issue and wasting my time going over issues that have been discussed since 1997.

[Dark Vengeance]

Not being exclusive does not mean they are not taking the fight outside the context.  It just means other people did it, too.  And no group used UOExtreme as much as PKs did.  They JUMPED at the chance to get an advantage, inside the game and out.  Didn't matter to them.  Doesn't matter to me.

It means they are not taking the fight outside of game contexts any moreso than the rest of the playerbase.

I'd also challenge your statement about UOE, but seeing as how neither one of us have any actual facts to base our assessment on, that'd be kind of silly, wouldn't it? I will concede that PKs were the most visible UOE users, but not that they were using it in greater numbers than the rest of the playerbase.
 

Comparing the rules of a game, to the laws of the universe is an inherently flawed argument.  One can change, one can't.

That would largely depend on what you believe in, Zaph....but I'll concede that, as it's a pedantic non-issue.

You're once again ignoring the point that humanity does not rely on God/fate/karma/the force/luck/random chance to provide justice or enforce a set of collective values....we handle it ourselves.

Would you care to address that point, or do you prefer to keep ducking it?

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

[daveNYC]

You're once again ignoring the point that humanity does not rely on God/fate/karma/the force/luck/random chance to provide justice or enforce a set of collective values....we handle it ourselves.

The point doesn't work, because it's a game.  PvE players don't want to be dependent on PvP players (who may not even be on that evening) in order to enjoy their game.

Thinking that the PvEers will get the Antis to guard them from the PKers is like Mythic hoping that their realm populations will balance themselves out.

[Dark Vengeance]

You honestly think that people enjoy non-consentual pvp? Yes, people love being victims, and pks need victims, not opponents.

It has occurred to me that if I keep replying, maybe we can recreate an entire 1997 UOVault debate. Making nice progress so far.

That's retarded. It's also why we don't have any non-consentual pvp games excepting our Korean friends. Maybe Korea is the place for you, la~

It is a retarded concept that anyone would play TO BE A VICTIM. Why did people play UO when it first came out? Why did they continue to play after having some nasty encounters with PKs and griefers?

Are you suggesting that everyone was merely biding their time until Zaph and his ilk could get the ruleset changed (rep patch with T2A)? And then changed again (UO:R)? And then changed again(UO:LBR)? And then yet again (UO:AoS)?

I like pvp games, I play pvp games, I prefer pvp. It's the mutual pinnacle of online gaming, roleplaying fused with pvp. Each without the other is not a very good thing.

I agree 100% with this statement. Roleplayed PvP is much better than simple OOC combat.....but even roleplayed PvP isn't simply made up of duels. Lack of non-consent PvP means you strip away any of the spontaneous PvP that can emerge from good roleplay. The Chesapeake roleplaying community had a nifty list of guidelines for rpers to follow in order to keep spontaneous PvP as a part of the rp experience. I'll have to find the link once I get home.

Anyone worth their salt in pvp should prefer a fight against an evenly matched opponent, not someone who isn't looking for a fight, which is the only difference between consentual and non-consentual pvp. You want to victimize people, and then get surprised when people scorn you for it?

I certainly hope that's a generalized "you people" regarding PKs, and not directed squarely at me. I've explained that I have engaged in non-consent PvP, but not as a PKer. I've done quite a bit of work as an anti, and have had plenty of battles in spontaneous rp'ed PvP. My primary character was a devout follower of the Virtues...a reluctant hero type, pretty much an all around goodie-two-shoes.

But you get a rise out of pissing people off, so hey, it's cool, right? People like you are what's holding mature pvp back. People like you are the reason the genre can't move forward.

Nice little tirade there, but I don't see how the existence of a non-consentual PvP game does anything to hinder consentual PvP in other games. If you want a consentual-PvP-centric game, more power to you....that's not the type of game I am looking for.

I personally enjoy how the automatic assumption is that I am a grief PK.

As has been pointed out, there is still Felucca, but what you don't get are victims, because everyone entering Felucca knows to be ready for a fight. I can only think that you want to victimize people.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

I continued to play in Felucca for a while after UO:R. Hell, I had 3 houses there....in some great locations. Being an anti during that era sucked, because we had both Trammel and statloss. Hardly any PKs around to fight, and nobody to protect. It reached the point where I felt bad slaying reds, because I was fucking up their character (statloss) and they were pretty much relegated to picking off the occasional adventurers who wandered onto the facet and got careless.

You'd have been closer to the mark pointing out Siege, but by the time LBR had hit, I was starting to take objection to several other aspects of UO's development (the Virtues anyone?).

But if after all this time you still don't understand how the best mmorpg ever was ruined, you never will and I'm done addressing the issue and wasting my time going over issues that have been discussed since 1997.

Well, I personally enjoyed the segment of UO that existed between T2A and UO:R. The penalties on PKing were enough to act as a deterrent for all but the most dedicated killers, allowing players to hunt, but not to let their guard down completely. Camping spawns was still a risky proposition. Player communities were starting to develop quite nicely, we had some great RP communities budding (at least on my shard)...some major guilds and player cities had learned how to defend themselves quite well against the remaining PK threat.

You see, I spent most of my time at that point PLAYING THE GAME. Meanwhile, there were some pretty extreme folks making arguments aginst PKing on the boards, and making arguments like "a pk robs me of my time and forces a playstyle upon me that I dont enjoy"....both of which are arguments that could be made about mobs if the game had sufficiently difficult AI.

It was taken beyond "give them consequences", and taken to the level of "give us an option to play without this as a risk". There was a happy medium in the middle, and OSI decided to practically skip right over it in favor of the taking the seemingly easy way out and splitting the facets.

I do not believe it was coincidence that both Raph and Garriott left prior to that point in UO history.

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