Looting in PVP

[cosapi]

PVP at one time was more than just seeing who could kill who the fastest the moment two people laid eyes on each other. Because interacting with players through methods other than fighting could be considered a form of PVP if a game is flexible enough to allow such opportunities.

[Morat20]

PVP at one time was more than just seeing who could kill who the fastest the moment two people laid eyes on each other. Because interacting with players through methods other than fighting could be considered a form of PVP if a game is flexible enough to allow such opportunities.

As someone noted -- crafting and trading are forms of PvP. At least in systems like SWG and EVE. I'm currently dealing with some fucker in EVE that likes to come in and overbid my buy orders by a fucking penny. So I do the same to him. And that's out in the fucking boonies. The shit that goes on between the real traders is considerably harsher.

[Sairon]

PvE = Player vs. Environment
PvP = Player vs. Player

Anything you do that pits you against the game is PvE.
Anything you do that pits you against another person is PvP.

Unconventional examples of PvP:
- Ninja looting
- Guild politics
- Becoming a cutthroat merchant
- Forum trolling
- Rushing to be the first person to reach max level
- Rushing to be the first guild to kill the ultimate raid boss

In PvE everybody can win, or everybody can lose.
In PvP somebody wins and somebody else loses.

If, like LC, you can't enjoy a game unless somebody is losing, you have to grief in order to enjoy PvE (even if everybody loses it's better than if nobody does)... and you have to find any underhanded method you can to make sure that PvP is weighted to your advantage, and causes as much pain to the other player as possible. It's an ugly, twisted version of the MMOG Holy Grails: Impact and Reknown. Being max level doesn't matter because everybody's max level...

"...but that guy we just ganked was pissed! We killed him six times then he logged off and posted on the forums that he's quitting the game!" Looting is just a way to make the other player remember you a little longer: "See this battleship I've got? Remember when it was yours?"

Players who want a cooperative rather than a competitive game will never enjoy playing with LC.
They're happiest when everybody wins.

You're stretching the definition way to much. So since I get cash from killing mobs, which I use in the market to buy stuff from other players, killing mobs is PvP as well?

Looting isn't just a way to make the other player remember you a little longer, it's just as stated earlier like the diffrence between playing poker with or without money.

And I don't see at all what you're trying to get at with the griefer example, how is that related to anything?

[Rithrin]

You're stretching the definition way to much. So since I get cash from killing mobs, which I use in the market to buy stuff from other players, killing mobs is PvP as well?

Looting isn't just a way to make the other player remember you a little longer, it's just as stated earlier like the diffrence between playing poker with or without money.

And I don't see at all what you're trying to get at with the griefer example, how is that related to anything?

I think he was saying that you don't have to loot to make PvP meaningful, and that looting in PvP is simply a way to make them remember you longer.

But, uh, I actually agree with what he's saying. Whether or not you are consciously competing with other players for highest level or richest mogul on the server, with the way these games are designed you always are. In some way you are always competing. When a game is first released, even if you're just a dedicated PvE'er grinding away with no concern for others, there will always be "that guy" who is trying to hit the top level fastest. And you're competing with him by gaining your levels. Just like when the first guild to down XXX boss and loot his epic gear they just competed (and I guess technically won) the competiton against the other guilds/players.

Which is why I find it amusing when people actively argue against PvP (Especially when looting is involved) ingame, but then turn around and go undercutting people's prices on the auction house or bazaar. They're doing the same thing - taking someone else's income. Only in this case it's not beating them down and taking their coins, its making sure the coins from an outside source go to himself instead of them.

Added: While we're on the topic... I would really like to see an MMO where players compete not just in the arena but in other areas, too. I've been playing Vanguard's diplomacy system and I think it would be a good idea. Most players would go through the game trying to "talk" their way to the top of a confrontation via some kind of card game parley, but it would be possible that a situation got so heated (Or one player was provoked through angry statements in the parley) that they resorted to violence in a Shakespearian style rapier duel.

[Sairon]

To some extent I agree with that, but it's more about the individual motivation. There's loads of people out there playing who doesn't care about if others are level max before them, or if they're the last on the server to get a specific item.

[tkinnun0]

Looting isn't just a way to make the other player remember you a little longer, it's just as stated earlier like the diffrence between playing poker with or without money.

No, it's like playing poker with money and playing poker with money AND having the winner punch the loser in the stomach.

Analogies are like shit; everybody's got an endless supply.

[Sairon]

Looting isn't just a way to make the other player remember you a little longer, it's just as stated earlier like the diffrence between playing poker with or without money.

No, it's like playing poker with money and playing poker with money AND having the winner punch the loser in the stomach.

Analogies are like shit; everybody's got an endless supply.

Eh? You can't connect the dots? I'l try to make it more clear then. When you die in to a player in WoW you respawn without loosing anything and the other player gaining nothing ( do you see the connection to poker without money here? ). In for example SB if you have 50k gold in your inventory and die to another player, he will loot it ( do you see the connection to playing with money here? ).

[Rithrin]

To some extent I agree with that, but it's more about the individual motivation. There's loads of people out there playing who doesn't care about if others are level max before them, or if they're the last on the server to get a specific item.

True, I said that actually. You could have no care about anyone else, but that person who you are now unknowingly competing with will (If you are a great enough threat) take action against you. Whether it be by corpse camping, mass auction house scam/control, following you around and stealing kills/resource nodes, he's brought the PvP to you even if he's not stabbing you repeatedly.

[pxib]

Not just any merchant, a cutthroat merchant. Getting the best price. Demanding the highest price. Killing mobs -can- be PvP... if you're competing with other players for a spawn point, trying to get loot credit for the most mobs... but if you need to kill mobs to get capital you're obviously not a PvP merchant yet. Beg a little, trade a lot. That "playing poker with money" is precisely what I'm talking about. Without cash on the table a loss is just a loss. With cash on the table it's $20. The next week you come back for poker night, you'll still be thinking about the $20 you lost last time. No cash on the table and you probably wouldn't even come back for a second week. You seek revenge because you remember.

Griefing is just PvP taken to its logical extreme. Unable to find (or uninterested in) fair fights, the PvPer seeks out the helpless... either those so weak they don't stand a chance, or (by abusing the rules) anybody in the same faction whom the game does not allow to fight back. As a grief example let's go back to that guy trying to tag mobs such that they attack the other players hunting, but he gets the credit for kills. That -is- the most efficient way to get their loot... it's also going to piss somebody off. Bonus. If you realize, part way through a dungeon run, that you have to leave -- what's more exciting: Warning everyone, and recommending a replacement... or engineering a wipe?

The game can't lose, only people do. If you have to lose, take as many of them with you as you can.

I can't personally play like this -- my conscience gets in the way. I prefer cooperative play and am happiest when everybody is happy and nobody has to lose. I love a successful raid where everybody gets what they're looking for. I try to group with people who are camping the spawn I need... it may slow the rewards down, but it won't feel slow because I won't be alone. I'd rather play with than play against.

BUT

The easiest way to promote player-created storylines is by promoting conflict, so I'd like to see how we can take Sairon's money without making him feel like he's been punched in the stomach. I want the thirst for revenge without all the "this sucks" and "wtf" and "why am I playing a game that pisses me off?"

[Stephen Zepp]

I still need to write that damn article on positive vs negative conflict in games....

[Riggswolfe]

Nobody said that when the masses finally try a *good* or *real* or whatever PvP game, they'll come flooding out of WoW.  Don't put words into people's mouthes.

Neither did I. No words were put in your mouths. Hell, I think 90% of the population of WoW are a lost cause for anything other than WoW. Saddens me to no end.

I was going to disagree with this statement but then I really thought about it. The "problem" with the WoW player is that they have been spoiled by WoW. Say what you want about the game, it is very polished and appeals to many major MMO player types. When people start tiring of WoW they will expect the same in the new game they try, and alot of them are going to be in for a rude shock. So my guess is that WoW players will disappear out of the MMO market rather than moving on to most other games.

Rather, people questioned the retarded assumption that "there is no market for PvP games" and "PvPers are the minority", which doesn't you know, actually have any grounds in reality, despite how cool and popular a notion it is on this forum. 

First off, noone has said there is no market for pvp games. People have said that such a market is a niche market however. The term PvPers is broad.  PvPers who want FFA PvP with loot certainly are in the minority and to think otherwhise is to be in denial. People who dabble in PvP and/or will play a PvP game that doesn't overly punish the loser are growing mostly due to games like DAOC and WOW. In fact, I'd say the percentage of people who purely PvE is almost as small as the people in the PvP with loot camp. The middle ground is now the largest group of MMO players. The important thing to keep in mind is that this middle ground wants two things:

A) A choice: WOW battlegrounds, flags, and/or DAOC frontiers are the future of PVP gaming.
B) Little punishment for dying/losing: This actually applies to both PVE and PVP. The old days of corpse runs, xp loss, pvp loot, are pretty much dead except for "hardcore" games like Vanguard and Shadowbane. The very time investment that draws people to MMOs makes them angry when they lose stuff in the game that they invested time in.

The only thing you can say is that there are no PvP games out, and lots of people play the games that ARE out, which happen to be non-PvP games.  Out of curiosity, how do "market forces" determine that there is no demand for a PvP game, when there is currently no PvP game out as a benchmark?  Surely Market Forces aren't stupid enough to look at Shadowbane to determine this, right?  I hope that's not what you're going off either.

Yeah, Neocron, Lineage 1&2, DAOC, WOW PVP+ servers, and I'm sure others I'm not aware of are not out. You're right, there is currently no game that supports PVP. And to answer your final question, market forces determine there in little demand for the type of pvp game you desire because that is what history in the mmo genre has shown. Admittedly, this genre is still somewhat in its infancy (though it can be argued that all computer gaming is) but so far, no pvp+ game has reached even EQ levels of success, not even the holy grail of pvp+ pre-trammel UO did. In fact, I'd say pre-trammel UO very nearly killed MMOs as a viable genre.

As for your discussion of what PvE and PvP encompass, I would argue that most people (or at least the PvP+ people in this type of debate) when talking about PvE only ARE talking about grinding mobs and fedex quests.  I wouldn't say that the exploration, discovery, etc. aspects are put solely under PvE here.  Suppose not: are you saying that PvP+ people don't want any exploration or crafting or economy or epic storylines in their games?

PvP+ people tend to describe exploring, crafting, etc as sidelines to their gameplay. And sorry, but those things are classified as PVE until such time as you get crafting components from killing PCs or killing PCs gives you a map to start some exploring or killing PCs gives you gold/loot. And killing PCs has never resulted in an ingame epic storyline unless you wish to think of some of the more legendary guild rivalries as an epic storyline though that is stretching the definition of epic. So, I'd say that for a large group of PvP+ people those things are part of that boring whack a foozle gameplay that Slayerik mentions.

Really, do you want to know what kills pvp+ games? Look no further than LC and Njia. Given a choice between spending time with people like them and PvE gameplay, most gamers will choose PvE.

[tkinnun0]

Eh? You can't connect the dots? I'l try to make it more clear then. When you die in to a player in WoW you respawn without loosing anything and the other player gaining nothing ( do you see the connection to poker without money here? ). In for example SB if you have 50k gold in your inventory and die to another player, he will loot it ( do you see the connection to playing with money here? ).

No, I don't see any fundamental difference between those two. In either case I would be pissed at myself for the failure, really pissed if I had been failing again and again. Little downtime is of no consequence compared to that, just insult to injury.

[Surlyboi]

I was going to disagree with this statement but then I really thought about it. The "problem" with the WoW player is that they have been spoiled by WoW. Say what you want about the game, it is very polished and appeals to many major MMO player types. When people start tiring of WoW they will expect the same in the new game they try, and alot of them are going to be in for a rude shock. So my guess is that WoW players will disappear out of the MMO market rather than moving on to most other games.

Bingo. I may think WoW's a turd, but it's an incredibly well-polished turd. And once people who have never had any experience with any other MMO will, once they tire of the turd they've been playing, look at the field; see there's nothing nearly as polished and say fuck it all, I'm done.

[ajax34i]

I disagree.  Just like the average citizen goes to some movies and not to others, and if they go to a particulary crappy movie, that doesn't turn them off from EVER visiting the theater ever again, I think that if WoW is succeeded by a period of several years of absolutely crappy junk, when another good MMOG is made, it'll again have WoW numbers.

People don't get into and out of "the genre", they just keep in mind whatever good entertainment is out there (this includes books, TV, computer games, and going out for a social event).

[Surlyboi]

Well, yes and no. There will be those that will find other MMOs. But the barrier to entry is gonna be that much more insane because WoW set the bar so damned high.

[LC]

I think people take exception to LC because he'd rather resort to name calling than just state an objective viewpoint.  Most of us would rather have a dialogue than a playground argument. 

But when he was calling us "poser adrenaline junkie chickenshits" it was perfectly fine.

[Rithrin]

I disagree.  Just like the average citizen goes to some movies and not to others, and if they go to a particulary crappy movie, that doesn't turn them off from EVER visiting the theater ever again, I think that if WoW is succeeded by a period of several years of absolutely crappy junk, when another good MMOG is made, it'll again have WoW numbers.

People don't get into and out of "the genre", they just keep in mind whatever good entertainment is out there (this includes books, TV, computer games, and going out for a social event).

If you're going to make this analogy, its not so much that they are turned off forever by one crappy movie, but that the first movie they ever saw (WoW) had record breaking production funds and was possibly one of the best looking movies created to date. And then after that every other movie looks like crap.

[Morat20]

I disagree.  Just like the average citizen goes to some movies and not to others, and if they go to a particulary crappy movie, that doesn't turn them off from EVER visiting the theater ever again, I think that if WoW is succeeded by a period of several years of absolutely crappy junk, when another good MMOG is made, it'll again have WoW numbers.

People don't get into and out of "the genre", they just keep in mind whatever good entertainment is out there (this includes books, TV, computer games, and going out for a social event).

If you're going to make this analogy, its not so much that they are turned off forever by one crappy movie, but that the first movie they ever saw (WoW) had record breaking production funds and was possibly one of the best looking movies created to date. And then after that every other movie looks like crap.

Also -- montly fee. Playing WoW means they probably are more likely to plop down 50 bucks to try Vanguard or Conan or Lord of the Rings Online. (Or, more likely, download the trial and give it a whirl). However, who is going to pay money to keep playing a game that isn't as polished and fun as the one you've got? Especially if it's really derivative.

I play three MMORPG's off and on -- CoH, EVE, and WoW. They're all very different feels. The only "upcoming" ones I'm considering even trying are LoTRO and Pirates of the Burning Sea -- and Lord of the Rings will have a bigger barrier, since it'll have much the same feel as WoW. Fantasy DIKU. At least Pirates are slightly different.

[Hugo]

It is a shame that so few of you have played RuneScape, since it puts the lie to a substantial proportion of the comments in this thread, primarily by having PvP with looting and still managing to retain over 100k subscribers.

- it isn't FFA, PvP happens only in a specific area of the world ("the wilderness"), and a couple of other specific locations (like the Duel Arena)
- if you die, you respawn outside the PvP area, so no camping/instadeath
- some areas of PvP allow 1-on-1 combat only, others are many-v-many
- when in level n of the wilderness, you can only attack people whose combat level is within n levels of yours (combat level ranges from 3 to 126; wilderness level from 1 to around 48)
- when you die, you drop all but your 3 most valuable items (4 if you are using the mid-level prayer)
- if you attack someone else you get a skull and crossbones over your head for 5 minutes; die while skulled and you lose all your items

I've been playing RS for around 4 years, though I've never touched the PvP side myself. At least once a week some friend tells me they're giving up the game after losing stuff to PvPers, but over 90% change their mind within a week. At least once a week some friend tells me they're never gonna PvP no more; they invariably go back to it within a week, 100%.

(Sorry I'm a week late with this - I only come looking for new games to play once a year or so.)

Hugo

[Nija]

Does Runescape still look like a DOS RPG? Legend of Kyrandia comes to mind.

[Hugo]

Does Runescape still look like a DOS RPG? Legend of Kyrandia comes to mind.

Better than LoK, but crap compared to what you'll get with a dedicated Windoze client.

It is a Doom-style 3D engine - you won't ever be able to hide in a tree and watch someone pass underneath unless they script it as part of a quest, but I think it's pretty good within the technical limits of the medium.

Hugo

[Riggswolfe]

It is a shame that so few of you have played RuneScape, since it puts the lie to a substantial proportion of the comments in this thread, primarily by having PvP with looting and still managing to retain over 100k subscribers.

If I am understanding the play mechanics correctly it is mostly a pve game with one area that is pvp. This is more akin to DAOC. If you go to this wilderness level, you know you're going to a pvp area and so you have options. The discussion in this thread is about FFA PvP with  looting across the majority of the game world.

The two don't compare. It's like saying that if looting was put into WoW's battlefields then a pvp with looting mmo would be the number one MMO game in the U.S.

[Slayerik]

It is a shame that so few of you have played RuneScape, since it puts the lie to a substantial proportion of the comments in this thread, primarily by having PvP with looting and still managing to retain over 100k subscribers.

If I am understanding the play mechanics correctly it is mostly a pve game with one area that is pvp. This is more akin to DAOC. If you go to this wilderness level, you know you're going to a pvp area and so you have options. The discussion in this thread is about FFA PvP with  looting across the majority of the game world.

The two don't compare. It's like saying that if looting was put into WoW's battlefields then a pvp with looting mmo would be the number one MMO game in the U.S.

I wouldnt say this discussion is about FFA looting.

FFA is one aspect of looting in PVP. One that we will maybe see in ten years after people figure out that another WoW clone isn't going to cut it, because you can't beat Blizzard at their own game.

I was talking with my brother on the long ride home about my recent Eve gaming. He played a lot of WoW, and some UO back in the day. He enjoys PVP, but not as much as myself (im a little more competitive in nature). He can see why I burned out in WoW BC at level 64. There is no real conflict, nothing to give a shit about. At least in Eve, Im fighting to achieve an objective (usually), risking some isk buying a nice ship. But when I destroy some battleships on my opponents side, I know it hurts them. I know next time I will see that guy in a Cruiser, and the time after that a frigate. I am accomplishing what needs to happen to obliterate my enemy, and grabbing some of his loot at the same time. The PVP matters. Loses matter. Wins matter. When our fleet loses a Dreadnaught or carrier in a siege, we all feel the sting.

Thats what most PVP games lack. The feeling that you are effecting your world. I know in WoW if I own some noob, he will be back in 30 sec to fight me. I can kill him 1000 times and he will never leave my land. There is nothing stopping him from fucking with me from now until I hearth out.

I don't know, call me crazy but if nothing is on the line in a MMO PVP situation, then it gets old quick.

[Jayce]

I don't know, call me crazy but if nothing is on the line in a MMO PVP situation, then it gets old quick.

I don't think it's crazy, it's just a certain playstyle.  As a relative carebear I can, in fact, see the attraction.  But it's just a really refined taste that not everyone has the time/energy/inclination for.

[Hugo]

If I am understanding the play mechanics correctly it is mostly a pve game with one area that is pvp. This is more akin to DAOC. If you go to this wilderness level, you know you're going to a pvp area and so you have options.

Yes, it's an area that used to be about a third of the game world (4 years ago), and is now about half of that - if you get the balance right, the PvPers are happy and you don't need to fuck with their world (though they like new eq and buffs to play with). PvEers want a place to explore as well, so that's where most of the new areas go.

Going there is mostly optional - a couple of quests require you to go into the PvP area, and several skills are faster to train there (assuming you don't get ganked too often).

There are also areas where you can fight other players without any danger of loss ("Castle Wars", a sort of Capture the Flag type game). Such areas have their adherents, but they don't get anywhere near the numbers of the PKing areas, and the games there are discussed and remembered even less than the numbers would suggest - the emotional resonance isn't there.

The discussion in this thread is about FFA PvP with  looting across the majority of the game world.

It certainly wasn't only about FFA.

My points are only: PvP with looting can work if you get the balance right. It can even coexist with PvE. And not only in a niche (sub 50k subscriber) game.

It is possible FFA PvP can work too, but I can't see such a game being interesting for me.

Hugo

[tazelbain]

I just don't see anyway that harsh looting doesn't absolute cripple your new players and that's a non-starter any serious development team.  If I couldn't imediately replace my equipment after I die in Planetside, it would be completely unplayable. I need experience to win, but I can't get experience because I get pasted the instance I step on the field.  All my stuff is taken and I have to go through whatever tedious tasks to get a new set, so I can get pasted again.  Why should I give you my money again?  Refugee Online sounds like loads of fun.

Bar the assholes who enjoy taking people's stuff, the problem maybe people are able to endless comeback to fight so death is trivial.  If you have had zone locks with substantial timers upon death than people could keep their stuff but they couldn't comeback harass you over and over again.

[Venkman]

For anyone who thinks PvP doesn't sell, look at almost every other genre. There'd be no FPS nor RTS games these days without the online competitive play.

It's not PvP that's the problem. It's accountability in a stats- and acquisition-based persistent environment. Nobody sets out to lose stuff they spent months getting, be it XP, coin, items, whatever, and only a very very small group will accept that.

Don't expect mass market though. I mention FPS and RTS for a reason: neither is persistent between sessions. More sport than anything else.

The core issue with MMOs isn't the combat mechanic nor even the loss potential. It's the accountability. The more the player has to play the game to keep up and/or to maintain their holdings, the narrower the appeal. Eve is a perfect example. It can be played casually, but the best way to play is to live that game like no other (maybe SB). Having deep immersion in the game (and I'd contend, like others, the deepest form of immersion is ownership-driven PvP) is something the "masses" simply either can't afford or aren't interested in.

Lite-PvP will get the numbers. WoW BGs are one example. Maybe GW, but I hear otherwise. You want something that is really only about potential growth, with losses minimized to bindstones and maybe repair costs. There just isn't an awesome way to handle looting without having a system where only a relatively few people will want to bother.

And if you do want a system knowing only a few people will bother, that's probably relegated to an area of your larger game, not a game unto itself.

[Rhonstet]

Its been said before: if you want to embrace looting in PvP, the best model thus far is the Planetside model. 

Make equipment so cheap it is effectively free, but exclusive to one faction.  Then limit who can use what equipment to a persistent, always-increasing skill model.  Add in some model of decay (exclusive ammunition, destroyed if not looted, etc...)

PvP players aren't like PvE players.  PvP players want to be able to boast that their conquests are based on some interpretation of 'skill', and will regard any contest that they can't win in a negative light. Moving towards an achievement system that lets them start as a specialized killing machine and grow into a versatile one is the way to go.

[Nebu]

Its been said before: if you want to embrace looting in PvP, the best model thus far is the Planetside model. 

While I agree that Planetside has a decent system, it didn't fare well as a market strategy.  Why pay a monthly fee for an FPS when many better verisons can be played for the box cost alone?  I think the key is to tie players to their characters with some carrot for a development scheme.  The difficulty comes in a) keeping the loss penalty minimal while b) giving enough incentive to gain ranks without them becoming too dominant in the endgame. 

[tazelbain]

I'll go farther and say the people avoided PS because they have people FPS online before and knew that they'd just be fodder in a competitive environment.  And I don't blame them.  I have been fodder for the last week and its a tough road to travel.  At least with a single player FPS, you set bots to a level so they don't rape you.

People like collecting shit, they'd have been better off letting people have all the certs and making them unlock them one by one. Nothing hard, just get them involved.

Plus, the game really fell down on world feeling.  They couldn't have made the game more generic sci-fi if they tried. Three 3 slightly different human factions fighting over a dozen generic worlds. *yawn*

[LC]

I'll go farther and say the people avoided PS because they have people FPS online before and knew that they'd just be fodder in a competitive environment.  And I don't blame them.  I have been fodder for the last week and its a tough road to travel.  At least with a single player FPS, you set bots to a level so they don't rape you.

People like collecting shit, they'd have been better off letting people have all the certs and making them unlock them one by one. Nothing hard, just get them involved.

Plus, the game really fell down on world feeling.  They couldn't have made the game more generic sci-fi if they tried. Three 3 slightly different human factions fighting over a dozen generic worlds. *yawn*

People avoided planetside because your character is born with Parkinson's disease.

[Surlyboi]

How come there ain't no brothas in planetside?

And according to the original design specs, there was gonna be PVE in PS too. They were gonna have native species randomly running around the planets. I think it woulda been kinda cool to engineer an alien cow stampede in the middle of a base cap.

[Nija]

People avoided planetside because your character is born with Parkinson's disease.

Seriously. I've fired so many rounds into the sky people are going to think I'm Islamic.

[Jayce]

How come there ain't no brothas in planetside?

I noticed that when I played.  No Asians either.  Every avatar you can choose is a straight-up whitey.

I mentioned it on the dev suggestion board and it scrolled off in a matter of minutes.

[Surlyboi]

How come there ain't no brothas in planetside?

I noticed that when I played.  No Asians either.  Every avatar you can choose is a straight-up whitey.

I mentioned it on the dev suggestion board and it scrolled off in a matter of minutes.

With the notable exception of the female avatars. There's definitely a few Asian faces in there. Azusa laughed at that one and made a few comments about the developers proclivities that I'd rather not share here.