Do you know what kind of feeling I have while reading these posts ? Its like just walking in your kitchen and you see the toothfairy drinking coffee with Santa
Never In my dreams have I believed that there are "pure carebears" who hate pvp from all of their heart .
First time when I decided to play a pvp game , I decided to be a Pk from the start. To my surprise , I was not the only one who had this "unique and brilliant " idea.
I literarily grew up on games where you get Ganked on a daily basis. On games where every time you see another player aproaching , you were getting ready to unleash all your powers as fast and as hard as possible , every meeting with an Unknown player , pumped your blood , and most of the time they were really just passing by and not planning to Pk you.
When both sides are red , they aren't PKers anymore , they are PVPers .
The reason why PKers cant exist without Carebears is because You cant be a red unless you kill someone who did not want to engage in combat. If all carebears dissapear , the game pretty much will be a PVP only game . (look at darkfall)
I'm still shocked after reading what you guys wrote , but in a game like Mortal Online , carebears can take lots of profit after reds , thanks to the cool crafting system , there will be lots of carebears crafters , who will gather resources and craft items that most of the people will surely buy , thanks to the PKer who killed and full looted them. Not to mention that playing a PvE only game , is just like kicking a sandbag and telling everybody how cool you were while beating the shit out of it....there's no fun in killing some random mob who has no brain . Even if he is a raidboss...he is still just an NPC....there's no pride in killing it...
While fighting players , they will use strategies , they will try to outsmart you , outwit and cheat you , its far more satisfying to know you WON when somebody LOST. Not just a WoW game where everybody wins and your like "oh we defeated the raidboss yet again...hooray for us......"
I am a carebear, yet I spend most of my time playing in PVP servers/games.
Why? I like surprises. Pure PVE servers lack any real challenge as anyone can beat the limited AI in any computer game. The only thing that makes it bearable is if there's a chance for an encounter with a PK'er who I'll have to either evade, out think or actually beat to complete the pve objective.
But its a tricky balance. I don't want to become total prey, so a game needs to be designed in a manner that lets me survive by being large enough to get lost in, and have some mechanics that permit me a chance to flee or fight.
DAOC had a good mechanic I've not seen in other games, if a player was in a PVE encounter and another player attacked, the person fighting the npc would have their health restored back to 100%. I would have preferred that the npc aggro would have also been reset, but at least at 100% it gave a person a chance to use his defensive skills to escape until they were better prepared to fight.
I play EVE because it affords me the ability to control my pvp encounters to some extent (though I still die), and ets me join in the PVP when I wish.
I avoid Darkfall because I think there's far less chance for me to prosper and not enough pve content to make it worth my while.
I don't want to spend my life crafting btw, just no interest. I enjoy advancing my characters skills and overcoming higher level content.
So yes, pker's are necessary to keep the game exciting, and I guess at times I cross over into the anti-pk camp when I'm looking for fun.
What's important is to keep the number of pker's down to a managable level. You accomplish this by making the lifestyle hard and only pursued by the truly dedicated and skilled pker's, and not every pk wanna be that comes along.
I recall in Lineage 1 Pure Reds would drop most if not all of their gear if they died and could visit only one city. As such few chose such a lifestyle and those that did were truly great at their craft. It kept their numbers reasonable and you didn't find a red on every corner. (and people loved to hunt them for any gear they might have)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
People in this article seem to forget why "carebears" were needed in UO; Crafting. Unlike modern-day mmo's where crafting is an optional sidetrack it was a neccessity for UO to work, people crafted gear and sold it, crafted gear was much better than monster drops (even at low levels). This is what pretty much every modern mmo lacks, there's no sense of a living world as everything is monster drops and combat is enforced as the only way to play.
A FFA-PvP mmorpg needs a player-driven economy and meaningful crafting to work, that's also what made it so much more fun.
I find most of MMORPGs on the market dull and boring. Why ? Mostly because there is no challenge there, no real community abd no true risk so you don't experience there real emotions.
The era of theme parks destroyed it all, the MMOs are build now mostly around single player experience and making you to feel like a hero saving the world. On the top of that you have your pve raids and meaningless RvR battles with no real risk or rewards. You don't really shape the world or even leave a mere footprint in it.
There is no place in this setting for PK. "He killed me ?! ME ?! ! The Saviour of the world, The Slayer of The Demon of Doom ? That's not possible ! I am immortal and invincible !" People don't like to face a fact that they have been defeated and someone just took their stuff.
You believe that full loot pvp sandbox games destroy your game experience so you demand no loot, extremely restricted pvp and plenty of quests and pve content so you can "enjoy" yourself.
Then after ten years you wake up in the dead end. You play boring, clones set in different theme parks where you can't change anything or leave a real mark behind you. You grind through levels, gear, complete quests with plot worse then in Warhammer series books and kill mobs which AI will never be half as good as in single player games and will never be as smart as another human being.
When you reach the top: the max level and the ultimate gear you cry that there is NO end game, there is nothing to do and no reason to play until a new expansion. The expansion which introduce more quests, gear and levels to grind....You asked for it people and you deserve what you got.
I personally hope that sooner or later we will see on the market a true MMORPG: a sandbox with freedom of actions and consequences of them, where you will be able to build a place you can call your virtual home, whatever it will be a house or a kingdom. A place where political, economical and ideological alliances will shift and dynamically shape the world map. A place where the history and the plot will be written by the best actors and competitors: players themselves.
I find most of MMORPGs on the market dull and boring. Why ? Mostly because there is no challenge there, no real community abd no true risk so you don't experience there real emotions. The era of theme parks destroyed it all, the MMOs are build now mostly around single player experience and making you to feel like a hero saving the world. On the top of that you have your pve raids and meaningless RvR battles with no real risk or rewards. You don't really shape the world or even leave a mere footprint in it. There is no place in this setting for PK. "He killed me ?! ME ?! ! The Saviour of the world, The Slayer of The Demon of Doom ? That's not possible ! I am immortal and invincible !" People don't like to face a fact that they have been defeated and someone just took their stuff. You believe that full loot pvp sandbox games destroy your game experience so you demand no loot, extremely restricted pvp and plenty of quests and pve content so you can "enjoy" yourself. Then after ten years you wake up in the dead end. You play boring, clones set in different theme parks where you can't change anything or leave a real mark behind you. You grind through levels, gear, complete quests with plot worse then in Warhammer series books and kill mobs which AI will never be half as good as in single player games and will never be as smart as another human being. When you reach the top: the max level and the ultimate gear you cry that there is NO end game, there is nothing to do and no reason to play until a new expansion. The expansion which introduce more quests, gear and levels to grind....You asked for it people and you deserve what you got. I personally hope that sooner or later we will see on the market a true MMORPG: a sandbox with freedom of actions and consequences of them, where you will be able to build a place you can call your virtual home, whatever it will be a house or a kingdom. A place where political, economical and ideological alliances will shift and dynamically shape the world map. A place where the history and the plot will be written by the best actors and competitors: players themselves.
If its real emotion and thrills that you seek, might I suggest blood sport? It has the ultimate challenge, coupled with the ultimate penalty. Games on the other hand are ment to be entertainment. Now that means different things to different people. But I've spent MUCH more than enough time in the types of FFA sandbox games that some people rave about. The reality is that given the excuse(no in all too many games, encouragement) WAY too many people will become total bastards. Being the target of others ganking/griefing is NOT something I'm willing to pay money for these days.
The gaming population has also moved on from those days. The fact is there are a lot more of us CareBears these days, than there are people willing to tolerate(enjoy) ganking/griefing in the west. Look at the number of PvE vs PvP servers in WoW, and the fact that more than half(closer to 2/3) of Eve's player base stays in high sec, as just two of many examples. Games that are designed for FFA/full loot automatically niche themselves(in other words limit their profit potential). Those two realities(coupled with human nature) explain the much larger number of PvE games that exist. Its not something I see changing anytime soon.
One final note. Never is a LONG time. I suspect that given some of the recent advancements, we can expect that AI will become ever more effective. Some of its past research paths have proven disappointing, but some of the current approaches show much more promise. That combined with the ever increasing understanding of how the human brain itself operates, will make the next 20 years rather "interesting".
There are mechanisms to achieve a law and order: time flagging, stat lose after death for criminals, cutting off reds from access to civilized places. Sure you will always have a group of community running rampart as reds. Leave them be. In a game where you can easily lose your gear, being hunted provides you with thrill and flavour. In the opposition to grind based games you can replace lost gear quite easily, even if the lose hurts a bit.
If you get repetitively killed over and over again, it means you do something wrong. Stop going back to the same place all the time or at least bring some friends and get some aniti-PK hounds after your killers. The world is huge, if you can't confront your enemies, move to different place or find some allies. I believe that's the main problem with you wannabe heroes: you hate to admit that you are a mere human and you can achieve everything alone. You need to cooperate, build a community around you to protect your law & order and what is yours. Just another example of the main issue of MMO games "I want to play a MMO game and being able to achieve everything by myself".
If you don't feel anything while playing computer games then you are wasting your time with this hobby. Games are meant to be entertainment, but you won't achieve it without triggering emotions in players: taste of victory, satisfaction from an achieved goal, excitement, fear and a feeling of being a part of community.
Next has to be experience and character progression and I don't mean by that magical numbers above your head. I mean personal experience, being a part of player driven world, knowledge about politics, history, player/clan relations. That's real progression and that what bonds you with your character, not your uber sword dropped from a bear after 40000000 hours of raiding the same boring, scripted dungeon where hardly anything can go different.
Theme park games with their scripted pve experience and scripted quests give you the same experience as to anybody else. There is nothing unique about it, as there is nothing unique about your cookie cutter character from narrow set of classes.
Sure I am not living in denial, the number of people who like interacting/competing with mindless/soulless AI in static world full of already told for hundred times stories is much higher then people who like open, dynamic game worlds. Just another example of retardation in the game genre and introducing another type of "fast food" products.
But right now on the MMO market there is nothing left, all stories has been told multiple times. I can hardly see any MMO after WoW which achieve something which we can call a success or an innovation. I don't even talk about numbers of subs.
The niche for a full loot, full pvp sandbox MMORPG is there and as long developers will fill their sandbox with enough toys and sand they will find a loyal playerbase.
Saying that I would love to see the MMO genre to evolve in something new. Preferably a hybrid with a rich theme park like lore, a sandbox freedom, FPS player skill oriented combat and economy / strategy games depth. For that I am willing to wait 20 years, however I hope to see it the next year.
What law is there in MMORPGs except the GMs and the game design?
The most you can hope for from the "city guards" or "Sheriffs" in most MMORPGs is a quest or two, or a mindless attack on a member of the opposing faction or a wild beast. How realistic is it for there to be no penalties for PKing?
Perhaps a bounty and jail system like Oblivion could be implemented? Or players who take the role of guards or enforcers, as happened in UO?
The problem with totally open PKing is that it is not realistic for a level 70 person to be able to walk up behind a level 2 person in the middle of a crowded city and stab them in front of the guards.
That is not carebearism. That is common sense. Even ancient societies had laws and law enforcers. I can think of very few MMOs with systems that provide that sort of protection, particularly in cities and towns.
Now, what happens outside of the eyesight of the cities, towns, and guards? That might be a different matter...
I don't like the assertion that violence is inherently wrong. If I kill a guy who breaks into my house, I've done nothing wrong, if I somehow can stop him without doing so great, but if that doesn't seem an option, he had it comin. Same with the so called "Anti-Pks", their avenging the weak and the innocent is not "wrong" because it is PKing the offender. The day violence is no longer an option plan on becoming its daily doormat.
It is wrong to kill someone for breaking into your house. We live in a civilized society that offers alternatives to murder. If your life is directly threatened, and you have no alternatives, then it can be justifiable to murder someone who is trying to murder you.
Crafting and PvE is made just about a hundred times more interesting if the resources available are contested by other players and factions via PvP. This creates a metagame, which elevates the entire gaming experience.
For this reason, carebears benefit from the system as well. Just look at EVE. Most people there are carebears.
I don't like the assertion that violence is inherently wrong. If I kill a guy who breaks into my house, I've done nothing wrong, if I somehow can stop him without doing so great, but if that doesn't seem an option, he had it comin. Same with the so called "Anti-Pks", their avenging the weak and the innocent is not "wrong" because it is PKing the offender. The day violence is no longer an option plan on becoming its daily doormat.
It is wrong to kill someone for breaking into your house. We live in a civilized society that offers alternatives to murder. If your life is directly threatened, and you have no alternatives, then it can be justifiable to murder someone who is trying to murder you.
The ends do not justify the means.
No. It is NOT wrong to kill someone who is breaking into your home. They have already demonstrated hostile intent by their actions. Taking counter actions is simply defense of oneself and family. A *civilized* society would expect and demand such. Its only drones and their masters who insist that everyone(except the master classes enforcers) be unarmed and helpless. But you are quite right, in that ends do not justify the means used to achieve them. Which is richly ironic when one applies that to coercive government... PvP is generally a bad idea in most MMO's. It is usually slapped on to appease the PK crowd, and thus increase the demographic the game appeals to. Which of course is one reason that MMO PvP is generally a bad idea, as it ends up being rather poorly implimented. I quite enjoy many FPS games, because they are designed from the very start as PvP games. As for the current crop of FFA/full loot games, its too little, far too late. The majority of the audience has moved on to other types of games.
Crafting and PvE is made just about a hundred times more interesting if the resources available are contested by other players and factions via PvP. This creates a metagame, which elevates the entire gaming experience. For this reason, carebears benefit from the system as well. Just look at EVE. Most people there are carebears.
Said CareBears tend to stay in high sec and never leave. PvP is engaged in by those in low and no sec. Or those at war with other corporations(or flagged). Then of course, there are those insane enough to try ganking in high sec. Concord ALWAYS has the final say in that. The evolution of Concord is a fascinating example of the endless arms race between the gankers/griefers and the Dev's. At each step along that path, the gankers/griefered howled that it would be the very end of the game! Which is nonsense, as CCP is only protecting its business model. But the howls of outraged gankers/griefers is such SWEET music to my furry CareBear ears.
I don't like the assertion that violence is inherently wrong. If I kill a guy who breaks into my house, I've done nothing wrong, if I somehow can stop him without doing so great, but if that doesn't seem an option, he had it comin. Same with the so called "Anti-Pks", their avenging the weak and the innocent is not "wrong" because it is PKing the offender. The day violence is no longer an option plan on becoming its daily doormat.
It is wrong to kill someone for breaking into your house. We live in a civilized society that offers alternatives to murder. If your life is directly threatened, and you have no alternatives, then it can be justifiable to murder someone who is trying to murder you.
The ends do not justify the means.
No. It is NOT wrong to kill someone who is breaking into your home. They have already demonstrated hostile intent by their actions. Taking counter actions is simply defense of oneself and family. A *civilized* society would expect and demand such. Its only drones and their masters who insist that everyone(except the master classes enforcers) be unarmed and helpless. But you are quite right, in that ends do not justify the means used to achieve them. Which is richly ironic when one applies that to coercive government... PvP is generally a bad idea in most MMO's. It is usually slapped on to appease the PK crowd, and thus increase the demographic the game appeals to. Which of course is one reason that MMO PvP is generally a bad idea, as it ends up being rather poorly implimented. I quite enjoy many FPS games, because they are designed from the very start as PvP games. As for the current crop of FFA/full loot games, its too little, far too late. The majority of the audience has moved on to other types of games.
You are so wrong and I take it from your statement you live either in the USA or one of the old school Sharia law countries. In said countries where I assume you live, it might be the norm to shoot someone breaking in.Yyes its legal, but that does not make shooting a robber a thing you're expected to do in a civilized society. Unless you want to exclude pretty much all countries in Europe from "civilized society", because in most EU countries (I havnt done research so I dont know if its all of them) you are not allowed to use force thats excessive when compared to the crime being comitted against you. Meaning that you WILL go to jail if you kill or even shoot at someone who is trying to rob you, if you have no reason to believe your life is in danger.
Overall to me as I would expect from most people with what I would regard as a modern humane view on others, this should be the correct way for society to work. If you need to be allowed to shoot someone who only wants some of your earthly belongings without endangering your own existence, then you probably live in a place that is not very civilized because way too many people havent got a chance to succeed in life and there fore resorts to robbery.
In conclusion, yes its fine to shoot a robber if you want to have a wild west country, but seeing as you brought "civilized" into the discussion, then no, its not fine. It belongs in the past because a civilized country gives all its citizens no matter what their social background is a chance to succeed in life, and even takes proper care of those who fail while trying, so that we dont end up in a wild west state where half the citizens are robbing others just to get food on the table.
Originally posted by garn You are so wrong and I take it from your statement you live either in the USA or one of the old school Sharia law countries. In said countries where I assume you live, it might be the norm to shoot someone breaking in.Yyes its legal, but that does not make shooting a robber a thing you're expected to do in a civilized society.
Hold, friend. Please don't go around pointing fingers at the rest of us just because you found yourself an troll. For the record, there are very few places in the USA where you can shoot somebody who is breaking and entering your home and get off scot-free.
It is certainly not the norm, and very rarely legal to use excessive force on somebody who has illegally entered your home. Laws normally dictate that your life or safety or that of other people (not your belongings) have to be actively at risk, and that you haven't any other reasonable options.
You are so wrong and I take it from your statement you live either in the USA or one of the old school Sharia law countries. In said countries where I assume you live, it might be the norm to shoot someone breaking in.Yyes its legal, but that does not make shooting a robber a thing you're expected to do in a civilized society.
Hold, friend. Please don't go around pointing fingers at the rest of us just because you found yourself a troll. For the record, there are very few places in the USA where you can shoot somebody who is breaking and entering your home and get off scot-free.
It is certainly not the norm, and very rarely legal to use excessive force on somebody who has illegally entered your home. Laws normally dictate that your life or safety or that of other people (not your belongings) have to be actively at risk, and that you haven't any other reasonable options.
Thanks for putting that straight ! I'm always happy to be enlightened. I live in the EU and admit to not knowing everything about the rest of the world, but this just makes it less sensible to me that someone I think is an american would argue a civilized society would expect me to shoot a robber when not even all american states allows it !
Always good to see your generalist views of others being shamed when they are in fact to general and arent always true.
Originally posted by garn Thanks for putting that straight ! I'm always happy to be enlightened. I live in the EU and admit to not knowing everything about the rest of the world, but this just makes it less sensible to me that someone I think is an american would argue a civilized society would expect me to shoot a robber when not even all american states allows it ! Always good to see your generalist views of others being shamed when they are in fact to general and arent always true.
To be fair, Wraithone lives in one of the 13 US states where there are very lenient laws to this effect.
In his state, the law says: "...person is justified in threatening or using force against another when ... he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person"
There you have it. Shooting somebody can be legal, but even in the most lenient states, there are pretty stringent requirements for the situation to get that severe.
I don't like the assertion that violence is inherently wrong. If I kill a guy who breaks into my house, I've done nothing wrong, if I somehow can stop him without doing so great, but if that doesn't seem an option, he had it comin. Same with the so called "Anti-Pks", their avenging the weak and the innocent is not "wrong" because it is PKing the offender. The day violence is no longer an option plan on becoming its daily doormat.
It is wrong to kill someone for breaking into your house. We live in a civilized society that offers alternatives to murder. If your life is directly threatened, and you have no alternatives, then it can be justifiable to murder someone who is trying to murder you.
The ends do not justify the means.
No. It is NOT wrong to kill someone who is breaking into your home. They have already demonstrated hostile intent by their actions. Taking counter actions is simply defense of oneself and family. A *civilized* society would expect and demand such. Its only drones and their masters who insist that everyone(except the master classes enforcers) be unarmed and helpless. But you are quite right, in that ends do not justify the means used to achieve them. Which is richly ironic when one applies that to coercive government... PvP is generally a bad idea in most MMO's. It is usually slapped on to appease the PK crowd, and thus increase the demographic the game appeals to. Which of course is one reason that MMO PvP is generally a bad idea, as it ends up being rather poorly implimented. I quite enjoy many FPS games, because they are designed from the very start as PvP games. As for the current crop of FFA/full loot games, its too little, far too late. The majority of the audience has moved on to other types of games.
You are so wrong and I take it from your statement you live either in the USA or one of the old school Sharia law countries. In said countries where I assume you live, it might be the norm to shoot someone breaking in.Yyes its legal, but that does not make shooting a robber a thing you're expected to do in a civilized society. Unless you want to exclude pretty much all countries in Europe from "civilized society", because in most EU countries (I havnt done research so I dont know if its all of them) you are not allowed to use force thats excessive when compared to the crime being comitted against you. Meaning that you WILL go to jail if you kill or even shoot at someone who is trying to rob you, if you have no reason to believe your life is in danger.
Overall to me as I would expect from most people with what I would regard as a modern humane view on others, this should be the correct way for society to work. If you need to be allowed to shoot someone who only wants some of your earthly belongings without endangering your own existence, then you probably live in a place that is not very civilized because way too many people havent got a chance to succeed in life and there fore resorts to robbery.
In conclusion, yes its fine to shoot a robber if you want to have a wild west country, but seeing as you brought "civilized" into the discussion, then no, its not fine. It belongs in the past because a civilized country gives all its citizens no matter what their social background is a chance to succeed in life, and even takes proper care of those who fail while trying, so that we dont end up in a wild west state where half the citizens are robbing others just to get food on the table.
I'm always amused by the pathetic attitudes of the *subjects* of the various European countries. You've all been so totally conditioned by your ruling classes to be Good Citizens, that you really don't understand the first thing about basic human rights. Thankfully, many of our Founders/Framers understood those basic rights. Sadly, those have been badly eroded in all too many places by the American version of your ruling class. I'd hardly term what passes for government(and hence the society that such breeds) in many such places to be *civilized'. In a civilized society, the individual and their rights *and* responsibilities are the central focus. Quite unlike far too many collectivist systems that place much more value on the abstract known as "society", rather than the individuals involved.
I note how you attempt to frame the argument above. A reasonable person(phrase of art) would be justified in assuming hostile intent on the part of those breaking into ones home. How far one goes in that defense would depend on the situation. But it naturally *would* include the option of killing them if it was warranted. It doesn't matter what tragic story one can tell about their background and current circumstances. The fact remains that they took actions that placed others life in potential danger. They should thereby expect the consequences.
You are so wrong and I take it from your statement you live either in the USA or one of the old school Sharia law countries. In said countries where I assume you live, it might be the norm to shoot someone breaking in.Yyes its legal, but that does not make shooting a robber a thing you're expected to do in a civilized society.
Hold, friend. Please don't go around pointing fingers at the rest of us just because you found yourself an troll. For the record, there are very few places in the USA where you can shoot somebody who is breaking and entering your home and get off scot-free.
It is certainly not the norm, and very rarely legal to use excessive force on somebody who has illegally entered your home. Laws normally dictate that your life or safety or that of other people (not your belongings) have to be actively at risk, and that you haven't any other reasonable options.
Trust someone from Chicago to agree with a Good Subject from one of the European countries... Its too bad that so many of the eastern Peoples Republics have long since forgotten the original intent of the Founders/Framers in regards to personal defense and other basic human rights. I doubt that this will mean anything to one such, but perhaps others would like the facts, rather than collectivist spin. What is even more amusing is that one of the foremost scholars on the subject is also from your city. His name is John Lott. He wrote a fascinating book on the subject of guns and crime. It turns out that the reality is rather different from the distortions that those who favor victim disarmament have attempted to spread.
The problem with totally open PKing is that it is not realistic for a level 70 person to be able to walk up behind a level 2 person in the middle of a crowded city and stab them in front of the guards.
If a criminal dares to risk being caught and he is ready to meet with the consequences, why not ? As long the guard system is not a joke let him to have that opportunity to strike even in a relative safe zone of a city.
Levels ? You don't build a full pvp game build around levels. Especially if a level one character has 200 HP and level seventy 10 000 HP. It is as wrong as implementing full loot in a game where you have to grind your gear for months.
Stop thinking throught World of Warcraft prizmat, standards brought by that game and its clones seriously hinder your creativity and imagination people. No wonder half of you can't understand who somebody can enjoy games with full pvp and full loot.
As much it is matter of taste, there is a lot of people fed up with the present model of MMORPG games: static theme parks. There your actions don't matter, they don't affect anything except score boards. People are tired of character progression and whole gameplay build around grinding levels and gear. They know that whatever new theme park will show up on the horizon, it won't offer anything else and no persistent end game. Those people wait for a breeze of a fresh air and theme parks are not longer able to surprise nor innovate.
The PKs may need the carebears, but the carebears don't need the PKs.
The article is mostly about a PK'er who is understanding that there wont be easy bullying in mortals online because the carebears will never go there since there are like 200 other games they can go to. And the author don't like that thought.
The problem with PK'ers is that most of them don't really want to look for an exiting fight. They want to hurt other people who can't defend themselves. They are in fact just bullies, cowards that don't deserve any satisfaction.
And that is where the author is quite wrong. The anti PK'ers are not looking to bully someone else, they are looking for a real fight! That's what makes them better people than the reds.
Seriously I love the idea that "red" players will be bored to hell even in mortal online because there will be no easy targets to kill. They don't deserve that fun seriously. They deserve to sit down and be whupped by people who really know how to PvP.
"You are the hero our legends have foretold will save our tribe, therefore please go kill 10 pigs."
The PKs may need the carebears, but the carebears don't need the PKs. The article is mostly about a PK'er who is understanding that there wont be easy bullying in mortals online because the carebears will never go there since there are like 200 other games they can go to. And the author don't like that thought. The problem with PK'ers is that most of them don't really want to look for an exiting fight. They want to hurt other people who can't defend themselves. They are in fact just bullies, cowards that don't deserve any satisfaction. And that is where the author is quite wrong. The anti PK'ers are not looking to bully someone else, they are looking for a real fight! That's what makes them better people than the reds. Seriously I love the idea that "red" players will be bored to hell even in mortal online because there will be no easy targets to kill. They don't deserve that fun seriously. They deserve to sit down and be whupped by people who really know how to PvP.
You couldn't be more wrong here, PKs poor pvpers ? What games are you playing ? A WoW clone ?
Stop playing games where you stand no chance to escape or fight back and then we will talk again. In fact I would say it is easier to grief in WoW then in any well design full pvp and full loot game. WoW is a PK zone for cowards and people who like to bully others with no risk.
In most of well design sandbox games I played, I had completely different experience. With penalties for criminals, being a PK is even more adrenaline pumping. In Lineage you had a chance to drop your items, in UO you had your criminal timer when you had a hard time to access any civilized place and stat lose if you got yourself killed in that process.
Sure some of PKers kill everything what moves, but most of them are mini maxers who know a lot about the game and are really good pvpers and know how to calculate risk.
Maybe for you carebears don't need PK'ers, but for me a sandbox without real risk/reward ratio is almost as bland as rest of MMOs. I don't see myself a PKer, more often I am hunted then I hunt, but still I know how to defend myself, avoid them or run. If necessary I can deal with a fact that guy killed me and got in 5 minutes what I was working for a last hour. They just add that additional flavour to a game, especially if by risking more ( roaming away from the safe civilization ) as a non PKer you get higher rewards, for example: access to better resources nodes, rare drops etc.
I don't like the assertion that violence is inherently wrong. If I kill a guy who breaks into my house, I've done nothing wrong, if I somehow can stop him without doing so great, but if that doesn't seem an option, he had it comin. Same with the so called "Anti-Pks", their avenging the weak and the innocent is not "wrong" because it is PKing the offender. The day violence is no longer an option plan on becoming its daily doormat.
It is wrong to kill someone for breaking into your house. We live in a civilized society that offers alternatives to murder. If your life is directly threatened, and you have no alternatives, then it can be justifiable to murder someone who is trying to murder you.
The ends do not justify the means.
No. It is NOT wrong to kill someone who is breaking into your home. They have already demonstrated hostile intent by their actions. Taking counter actions is simply defense of oneself and family. A *civilized* society would expect and demand such. Its only drones and their masters who insist that everyone(except the master classes enforcers) be unarmed and helpless. But you are quite right, in that ends do not justify the means used to achieve them. Which is richly ironic when one applies that to coercive government... PvP is generally a bad idea in most MMO's. It is usually slapped on to appease the PK crowd, and thus increase the demographic the game appeals to. Which of course is one reason that MMO PvP is generally a bad idea, as it ends up being rather poorly implimented. I quite enjoy many FPS games, because they are designed from the very start as PvP games. As for the current crop of FFA/full loot games, its too little, far too late. The majority of the audience has moved on to other types of games.
You are so wrong and I take it from your statement you live either in the USA or one of the old school Sharia law countries. In said countries where I assume you live, it might be the norm to shoot someone breaking in.Yyes its legal, but that does not make shooting a robber a thing you're expected to do in a civilized society. Unless you want to exclude pretty much all countries in Europe from "civilized society", because in most EU countries (I havnt done research so I dont know if its all of them) you are not allowed to use force thats excessive when compared to the crime being comitted against you. Meaning that you WILL go to jail if you kill or even shoot at someone who is trying to rob you, if you have no reason to believe your life is in danger.
Overall to me as I would expect from most people with what I would regard as a modern humane view on others, this should be the correct way for society to work. If you need to be allowed to shoot someone who only wants some of your earthly belongings without endangering your own existence, then you probably live in a place that is not very civilized because way too many people havent got a chance to succeed in life and there fore resorts to robbery.
In conclusion, yes its fine to shoot a robber if you want to have a wild west country, but seeing as you brought "civilized" into the discussion, then no, its not fine. It belongs in the past because a civilized country gives all its citizens no matter what their social background is a chance to succeed in life, and even takes proper care of those who fail while trying, so that we dont end up in a wild west state where half the citizens are robbing others just to get food on the table.
I'm always amused by the pathetic attitudes of the *subjects* of the various European countries. You've all been so totally conditioned by your ruling classes to be Good Citizens, that you really don't understand the first thing about basic human rights. Thankfully, many of our Founders/Framers understood those basic rights. Sadly, those have been badly eroded in all too many places by the American version of your ruling class. I'd hardly term what passes for government(and hence the society that such breeds) in many such places to be *civilized'. In a civilized society, the individual and their rights *and* responsibilities are the central focus. Quite unlike far too many collectivist systems that place much more value on the abstract known as "society", rather than the individuals involved.
I note how you attempt to frame the argument above. A reasonable person(phrase of art) would be justified in assuming hostile intent on the part of those breaking into ones home. How far one goes in that defense would depend on the situation. But it naturally *would* include the option of killing them if it was warranted. It doesn't matter what tragic story one can tell about their background and current circumstances. The fact remains that they took actions that placed others life in potential danger. They should thereby expect the consequences.
Zzulu, has it dawned on you that my response was anything but trolling? It was a reasoned response to what I consider an appalling attitude. If more people spoke up in the face of such ignorance, we wouldn't be in our current sorry situation. If anyone is trolling here it is you. Lets get back to MMO's, shall we?.
All I can say is way to get completely off the topic for many of the previous posts. This article is about a game NOT real life situations. Please take the off topic stuff to another thread and stop polluting this one.
Another great article, keep up the good work. Using the words "griefer" and "carebear" carry too many negative connotations so I will avoid using them. I will use the term reds and builders respectively instead.
The entire point of the article is that the games that feature the pk aspect of a MMO like Mortal and Darkfall immediately condemn themselves to a small niche audience. The problem is, as I see it, many of these reds start their gaming life in FPS games where death is meaningless, when they move to a situation where it isn't they continue to play the same way. Unless a game can implement significant rules to control the natural inclination of these reds to kill other players indiscriminately, they won't attract the builders.
The problem is that the size of the groups are really not proportionate either. The builders are obviously far larger than any of the other groups. The anti-red group is always the smallest because there are usually few advantages to doing so. I was part of an anti red group in UO. The sad thing was that the leader and many of my good friends eventually turned red because it was far more profitable to do so. Eve is another example of this, being a bounty hunter is probably the worst profession you can choose in the game, just no profit in it at all. Eve's problem is that the area where the pirate prey called low sec is without doubt the least populated area in the game because of too much risk for too little gain. Eve's advantage it has it's own version of Trammel with the empire region.
I have yet to see a game come up with a solution to this conundrum. Mortal Online has a better ruleset than Darkfall, but still is reluctant to put in the restrictions needed to attract a significant population of the builders, hence again the small niche status of the game.
For a game to be successful in this genre, it must attract all three groups. There is huge risk in doing so, which is why no game to date has attempted such. Eve is probably the best example of trying to balance these populations, but it too has major issues in this area, ie, there is just no incentive to hunt pirates beyond the fun of doing so.
Comments
Do you know what kind of feeling I have while reading these posts ? Its like just walking in your kitchen and you see the toothfairy drinking coffee with Santa
Never In my dreams have I believed that there are "pure carebears" who hate pvp from all of their heart .
First time when I decided to play a pvp game , I decided to be a Pk from the start. To my surprise , I was not the only one who had this "unique and brilliant " idea.
I literarily grew up on games where you get Ganked on a daily basis. On games where every time you see another player aproaching , you were getting ready to unleash all your powers as fast and as hard as possible , every meeting with an Unknown player , pumped your blood , and most of the time they were really just passing by and not planning to Pk you.
When both sides are red , they aren't PKers anymore , they are PVPers .
The reason why PKers cant exist without Carebears is because You cant be a red unless you kill someone who did not want to engage in combat. If all carebears dissapear , the game pretty much will be a PVP only game . (look at darkfall)
I'm still shocked after reading what you guys wrote , but in a game like Mortal Online , carebears can take lots of profit after reds , thanks to the cool crafting system , there will be lots of carebears crafters , who will gather resources and craft items that most of the people will surely buy , thanks to the PKer who killed and full looted them. Not to mention that playing a PvE only game , is just like kicking a sandbag and telling everybody how cool you were while beating the shit out of it....there's no fun in killing some random mob who has no brain . Even if he is a raidboss...he is still just an NPC....there's no pride in killing it...
While fighting players , they will use strategies , they will try to outsmart you , outwit and cheat you , its far more satisfying to know you WON when somebody LOST. Not just a WoW game where everybody wins and your like "oh we defeated the raidboss yet again...hooray for us......"
I am a carebear, yet I spend most of my time playing in PVP servers/games.
Why? I like surprises. Pure PVE servers lack any real challenge as anyone can beat the limited AI in any computer game. The only thing that makes it bearable is if there's a chance for an encounter with a PK'er who I'll have to either evade, out think or actually beat to complete the pve objective.
But its a tricky balance. I don't want to become total prey, so a game needs to be designed in a manner that lets me survive by being large enough to get lost in, and have some mechanics that permit me a chance to flee or fight.
DAOC had a good mechanic I've not seen in other games, if a player was in a PVE encounter and another player attacked, the person fighting the npc would have their health restored back to 100%. I would have preferred that the npc aggro would have also been reset, but at least at 100% it gave a person a chance to use his defensive skills to escape until they were better prepared to fight.
I play EVE because it affords me the ability to control my pvp encounters to some extent (though I still die), and ets me join in the PVP when I wish.
I avoid Darkfall because I think there's far less chance for me to prosper and not enough pve content to make it worth my while.
I don't want to spend my life crafting btw, just no interest. I enjoy advancing my characters skills and overcoming higher level content.
So yes, pker's are necessary to keep the game exciting, and I guess at times I cross over into the anti-pk camp when I'm looking for fun.
What's important is to keep the number of pker's down to a managable level. You accomplish this by making the lifestyle hard and only pursued by the truly dedicated and skilled pker's, and not every pk wanna be that comes along.
I recall in Lineage 1 Pure Reds would drop most if not all of their gear if they died and could visit only one city. As such few chose such a lifestyle and those that did were truly great at their craft. It kept their numbers reasonable and you didn't find a red on every corner. (and people loved to hunt them for any gear they might have)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
People in this article seem to forget why "carebears" were needed in UO; Crafting. Unlike modern-day mmo's where crafting is an optional sidetrack it was a neccessity for UO to work, people crafted gear and sold it, crafted gear was much better than monster drops (even at low levels). This is what pretty much every modern mmo lacks, there's no sense of a living world as everything is monster drops and combat is enforced as the only way to play.
A FFA-PvP mmorpg needs a player-driven economy and meaningful crafting to work, that's also what made it so much more fun.
I find most of MMORPGs on the market dull and boring. Why ? Mostly because there is no challenge there, no real community abd no true risk so you don't experience there real emotions.
The era of theme parks destroyed it all, the MMOs are build now mostly around single player experience and making you to feel like a hero saving the world. On the top of that you have your pve raids and meaningless RvR battles with no real risk or rewards. You don't really shape the world or even leave a mere footprint in it.
There is no place in this setting for PK. "He killed me ?! ME ?! ! The Saviour of the world, The Slayer of The Demon of Doom ? That's not possible ! I am immortal and invincible !" People don't like to face a fact that they have been defeated and someone just took their stuff.
You believe that full loot pvp sandbox games destroy your game experience so you demand no loot, extremely restricted pvp and plenty of quests and pve content so you can "enjoy" yourself.
Then after ten years you wake up in the dead end. You play boring, clones set in different theme parks where you can't change anything or leave a real mark behind you. You grind through levels, gear, complete quests with plot worse then in Warhammer series books and kill mobs which AI will never be half as good as in single player games and will never be as smart as another human being.
When you reach the top: the max level and the ultimate gear you cry that there is NO end game, there is nothing to do and no reason to play until a new expansion. The expansion which introduce more quests, gear and levels to grind....You asked for it people and you deserve what you got.
I personally hope that sooner or later we will see on the market a true MMORPG: a sandbox with freedom of actions and consequences of them, where you will be able to build a place you can call your virtual home, whatever it will be a house or a kingdom. A place where political, economical and ideological alliances will shift and dynamically shape the world map. A place where the history and the plot will be written by the best actors and competitors: players themselves.
If its real emotion and thrills that you seek, might I suggest blood sport? It has the ultimate challenge, coupled with the ultimate penalty. Games on the other hand are ment to be entertainment. Now that means different things to different people. But I've spent MUCH more than enough time in the types of FFA sandbox games that some people rave about. The reality is that given the excuse(no in all too many games, encouragement) WAY too many people will become total bastards. Being the target of others ganking/griefing is NOT something I'm willing to pay money for these days.
The gaming population has also moved on from those days. The fact is there are a lot more of us CareBears these days, than there are people willing to tolerate(enjoy) ganking/griefing in the west. Look at the number of PvE vs PvP servers in WoW, and the fact that more than half(closer to 2/3) of Eve's player base stays in high sec, as just two of many examples. Games that are designed for FFA/full loot automatically niche themselves(in other words limit their profit potential). Those two realities(coupled with human nature) explain the much larger number of PvE games that exist. Its not something I see changing anytime soon.
One final note. Never is a LONG time. I suspect that given some of the recent advancements, we can expect that AI will become ever more effective. Some of its past research paths have proven disappointing, but some of the current approaches show much more promise. That combined with the ever increasing understanding of how the human brain itself operates, will make the next 20 years rather "interesting".
Fantasy world... open PvP... true sandbox... no levels... no quests... crafting-based... no instances.
Good times.
See you in 20 years then Wraithone.
There are mechanisms to achieve a law and order: time flagging, stat lose after death for criminals, cutting off reds from access to civilized places. Sure you will always have a group of community running rampart as reds. Leave them be. In a game where you can easily lose your gear, being hunted provides you with thrill and flavour. In the opposition to grind based games you can replace lost gear quite easily, even if the lose hurts a bit.
If you get repetitively killed over and over again, it means you do something wrong. Stop going back to the same place all the time or at least bring some friends and get some aniti-PK hounds after your killers. The world is huge, if you can't confront your enemies, move to different place or find some allies. I believe that's the main problem with you wannabe heroes: you hate to admit that you are a mere human and you can achieve everything alone. You need to cooperate, build a community around you to protect your law & order and what is yours. Just another example of the main issue of MMO games "I want to play a MMO game and being able to achieve everything by myself".
If you don't feel anything while playing computer games then you are wasting your time with this hobby. Games are meant to be entertainment, but you won't achieve it without triggering emotions in players: taste of victory, satisfaction from an achieved goal, excitement, fear and a feeling of being a part of community.
Next has to be experience and character progression and I don't mean by that magical numbers above your head. I mean personal experience, being a part of player driven world, knowledge about politics, history, player/clan relations. That's real progression and that what bonds you with your character, not your uber sword dropped from a bear after 40000000 hours of raiding the same boring, scripted dungeon where hardly anything can go different.
Theme park games with their scripted pve experience and scripted quests give you the same experience as to anybody else. There is nothing unique about it, as there is nothing unique about your cookie cutter character from narrow set of classes.
Sure I am not living in denial, the number of people who like interacting/competing with mindless/soulless AI in static world full of already told for hundred times stories is much higher then people who like open, dynamic game worlds. Just another example of retardation in the game genre and introducing another type of "fast food" products.
But right now on the MMO market there is nothing left, all stories has been told multiple times. I can hardly see any MMO after WoW which achieve something which we can call a success or an innovation. I don't even talk about numbers of subs.
The niche for a full loot, full pvp sandbox MMORPG is there and as long developers will fill their sandbox with enough toys and sand they will find a loyal playerbase.
Saying that I would love to see the MMO genre to evolve in something new. Preferably a hybrid with a rich theme park like lore, a sandbox freedom, FPS player skill oriented combat and economy / strategy games depth. For that I am willing to wait 20 years, however I hope to see it the next year.
What law is there in MMORPGs except the GMs and the game design?
The most you can hope for from the "city guards" or "Sheriffs" in most MMORPGs is a quest or two, or a mindless attack on a member of the opposing faction or a wild beast. How realistic is it for there to be no penalties for PKing?
Perhaps a bounty and jail system like Oblivion could be implemented? Or players who take the role of guards or enforcers, as happened in UO?
The problem with totally open PKing is that it is not realistic for a level 70 person to be able to walk up behind a level 2 person in the middle of a crowded city and stab them in front of the guards.
That is not carebearism. That is common sense. Even ancient societies had laws and law enforcers. I can think of very few MMOs with systems that provide that sort of protection, particularly in cities and towns.
Now, what happens outside of the eyesight of the cities, towns, and guards? That might be a different matter...
It is wrong to kill someone for breaking into your house. We live in a civilized society that offers alternatives to murder. If your life is directly threatened, and you have no alternatives, then it can be justifiable to murder someone who is trying to murder you.
The ends do not justify the means.
Crafting and PvE is made just about a hundred times more interesting if the resources available are contested by other players and factions via PvP. This creates a metagame, which elevates the entire gaming experience.
For this reason, carebears benefit from the system as well. Just look at EVE. Most people there are carebears.
kool.
It is wrong to kill someone for breaking into your house. We live in a civilized society that offers alternatives to murder. If your life is directly threatened, and you have no alternatives, then it can be justifiable to murder someone who is trying to murder you.
The ends do not justify the means.
No. It is NOT wrong to kill someone who is breaking into your home. They have already demonstrated hostile intent by their actions. Taking counter actions is simply defense of oneself and family. A *civilized* society would expect and demand such. Its only drones and their masters who insist that everyone(except the master classes enforcers) be unarmed and helpless. But you are quite right, in that ends do not justify the means used to achieve them. Which is richly ironic when one applies that to coercive government... PvP is generally a bad idea in most MMO's. It is usually slapped on to appease the PK crowd, and thus increase the demographic the game appeals to. Which of course is one reason that MMO PvP is generally a bad idea, as it ends up being rather poorly implimented. I quite enjoy many FPS games, because they are designed from the very start as PvP games. As for the current crop of FFA/full loot games, its too little, far too late. The majority of the audience has moved on to other types of games.
Said CareBears tend to stay in high sec and never leave. PvP is engaged in by those in low and no sec. Or those at war with other corporations(or flagged). Then of course, there are those insane enough to try ganking in high sec. Concord ALWAYS has the final say in that.
The evolution of Concord is a fascinating example of the endless arms race between the gankers/griefers and the Dev's. At each step along that path, the gankers/griefered howled that it would be the very end of the game! Which is nonsense, as CCP is only protecting its business model. But the howls of outraged gankers/griefers is such SWEET music to my furry CareBear ears. 
It is wrong to kill someone for breaking into your house. We live in a civilized society that offers alternatives to murder. If your life is directly threatened, and you have no alternatives, then it can be justifiable to murder someone who is trying to murder you.
The ends do not justify the means.
No. It is NOT wrong to kill someone who is breaking into your home. They have already demonstrated hostile intent by their actions. Taking counter actions is simply defense of oneself and family. A *civilized* society would expect and demand such. Its only drones and their masters who insist that everyone(except the master classes enforcers) be unarmed and helpless. But you are quite right, in that ends do not justify the means used to achieve them. Which is richly ironic when one applies that to coercive government... PvP is generally a bad idea in most MMO's. It is usually slapped on to appease the PK crowd, and thus increase the demographic the game appeals to. Which of course is one reason that MMO PvP is generally a bad idea, as it ends up being rather poorly implimented. I quite enjoy many FPS games, because they are designed from the very start as PvP games. As for the current crop of FFA/full loot games, its too little, far too late. The majority of the audience has moved on to other types of games.
You are so wrong and I take it from your statement you live either in the USA or one of the old school Sharia law countries. In said countries where I assume you live, it might be the norm to shoot someone breaking in.Yyes its legal, but that does not make shooting a robber a thing you're expected to do in a civilized society. Unless you want to exclude pretty much all countries in Europe from "civilized society", because in most EU countries (I havnt done research so I dont know if its all of them) you are not allowed to use force thats excessive when compared to the crime being comitted against you. Meaning that you WILL go to jail if you kill or even shoot at someone who is trying to rob you, if you have no reason to believe your life is in danger.
Overall to me as I would expect from most people with what I would regard as a modern humane view on others, this should be the correct way for society to work. If you need to be allowed to shoot someone who only wants some of your earthly belongings without endangering your own existence, then you probably live in a place that is not very civilized because way too many people havent got a chance to succeed in life and there fore resorts to robbery.
In conclusion, yes its fine to shoot a robber if you want to have a wild west country, but seeing as you brought "civilized" into the discussion, then no, its not fine. It belongs in the past because a civilized country gives all its citizens no matter what their social background is a chance to succeed in life, and even takes proper care of those who fail while trying, so that we dont end up in a wild west state where half the citizens are robbing others just to get food on the table.
Hold, friend. Please don't go around pointing fingers at the rest of us just because you found yourself an troll. For the record, there are very few places in the USA where you can shoot somebody who is breaking and entering your home and get off scot-free.
It is certainly not the norm, and very rarely legal to use excessive force on somebody who has illegally entered your home. Laws normally dictate that your life or safety or that of other people (not your belongings) have to be actively at risk, and that you haven't any other reasonable options.
EDIT: FYI - here are some examples of laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States
Hold, friend. Please don't go around pointing fingers at the rest of us just because you found yourself a troll. For the record, there are very few places in the USA where you can shoot somebody who is breaking and entering your home and get off scot-free.
It is certainly not the norm, and very rarely legal to use excessive force on somebody who has illegally entered your home. Laws normally dictate that your life or safety or that of other people (not your belongings) have to be actively at risk, and that you haven't any other reasonable options.
Thanks for putting that straight ! I'm always happy to be enlightened. I live in the EU and admit to not knowing everything about the rest of the world, but this just makes it less sensible to me that someone I think is an american would argue a civilized society would expect me to shoot a robber when not even all american states allows it !
Always good to see your generalist views of others being shamed when they are in fact to general and arent always true.
To be fair, Wraithone lives in one of the 13 US states where there are very lenient laws to this effect.
In his state, the law says:
"...person is justified in threatening or using force against another when ... he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person"
There you have it. Shooting somebody can be legal, but even in the most lenient states, there are pretty stringent requirements for the situation to get that severe.
It is wrong to kill someone for breaking into your house. We live in a civilized society that offers alternatives to murder. If your life is directly threatened, and you have no alternatives, then it can be justifiable to murder someone who is trying to murder you.
The ends do not justify the means.
No. It is NOT wrong to kill someone who is breaking into your home. They have already demonstrated hostile intent by their actions. Taking counter actions is simply defense of oneself and family. A *civilized* society would expect and demand such. Its only drones and their masters who insist that everyone(except the master classes enforcers) be unarmed and helpless. But you are quite right, in that ends do not justify the means used to achieve them. Which is richly ironic when one applies that to coercive government... PvP is generally a bad idea in most MMO's. It is usually slapped on to appease the PK crowd, and thus increase the demographic the game appeals to. Which of course is one reason that MMO PvP is generally a bad idea, as it ends up being rather poorly implimented. I quite enjoy many FPS games, because they are designed from the very start as PvP games. As for the current crop of FFA/full loot games, its too little, far too late. The majority of the audience has moved on to other types of games.
You are so wrong and I take it from your statement you live either in the USA or one of the old school Sharia law countries. In said countries where I assume you live, it might be the norm to shoot someone breaking in.Yyes its legal, but that does not make shooting a robber a thing you're expected to do in a civilized society. Unless you want to exclude pretty much all countries in Europe from "civilized society", because in most EU countries (I havnt done research so I dont know if its all of them) you are not allowed to use force thats excessive when compared to the crime being comitted against you. Meaning that you WILL go to jail if you kill or even shoot at someone who is trying to rob you, if you have no reason to believe your life is in danger.
Overall to me as I would expect from most people with what I would regard as a modern humane view on others, this should be the correct way for society to work. If you need to be allowed to shoot someone who only wants some of your earthly belongings without endangering your own existence, then you probably live in a place that is not very civilized because way too many people havent got a chance to succeed in life and there fore resorts to robbery.
In conclusion, yes its fine to shoot a robber if you want to have a wild west country, but seeing as you brought "civilized" into the discussion, then no, its not fine. It belongs in the past because a civilized country gives all its citizens no matter what their social background is a chance to succeed in life, and even takes proper care of those who fail while trying, so that we dont end up in a wild west state where half the citizens are robbing others just to get food on the table.
I'm always amused by the pathetic attitudes of the *subjects* of the various European countries. You've all been so totally conditioned by your ruling classes to be Good Citizens, that you really don't understand the first thing about basic human rights. Thankfully, many of our Founders/Framers understood those basic rights. Sadly, those have been badly eroded in all too many places by the American version of your ruling class. I'd hardly term what passes for government(and hence the society that such breeds) in many such places to be *civilized'. In a civilized society, the individual and their rights *and* responsibilities are the central focus. Quite unlike far too many collectivist systems that place much more value on the abstract known as "society", rather than the individuals involved.
I note how you attempt to frame the argument above. A reasonable person(phrase of art) would be justified in assuming hostile intent on the part of those breaking into ones home. How far one goes in that defense would depend on the situation. But it naturally *would* include the option of killing them if it was warranted. It doesn't matter what tragic story one can tell about their background and current circumstances. The fact remains that they took actions that placed others life in potential danger. They should thereby expect the consequences.
Hold, friend. Please don't go around pointing fingers at the rest of us just because you found yourself an troll. For the record, there are very few places in the USA where you can shoot somebody who is breaking and entering your home and get off scot-free.
It is certainly not the norm, and very rarely legal to use excessive force on somebody who has illegally entered your home. Laws normally dictate that your life or safety or that of other people (not your belongings) have to be actively at risk, and that you haven't any other reasonable options.
EDIT: FYI - here are some examples of laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States
Trust someone from Chicago to agree with a Good Subject from one of the European countries... Its too bad that so many of the eastern Peoples Republics have long since forgotten the original intent of the Founders/Framers in regards to personal defense and other basic human rights. I doubt that this will mean anything to one such, but perhaps others would like the facts, rather than collectivist spin. What is even more amusing is that one of the foremost scholars on the subject is also from your city. His name is John Lott. He wrote a fascinating book on the subject of guns and crime. It turns out that the reality is rather different from the distortions that those who favor victim disarmament have attempted to spread.
www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
They might also be interested in the recent supreme court decision on the subject of the second amendment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
With that having been said, lets move this to private if you wish. We now return you to your regular MMO discussion.
If a criminal dares to risk being caught and he is ready to meet with the consequences, why not ? As long the guard system is not a joke let him to have that opportunity to strike even in a relative safe zone of a city.
Levels ? You don't build a full pvp game build around levels. Especially if a level one character has 200 HP and level seventy 10 000 HP. It is as wrong as implementing full loot in a game where you have to grind your gear for months.
Stop thinking throught World of Warcraft prizmat, standards brought by that game and its clones seriously hinder your creativity and imagination people. No wonder half of you can't understand who somebody can enjoy games with full pvp and full loot.
As much it is matter of taste, there is a lot of people fed up with the present model of MMORPG games: static theme parks. There your actions don't matter, they don't affect anything except score boards. People are tired of character progression and whole gameplay build around grinding levels and gear. They know that whatever new theme park will show up on the horizon, it won't offer anything else and no persistent end game. Those people wait for a breeze of a fresh air and theme parks are not longer able to surprise nor innovate.
The PKs may need the carebears, but the carebears don't need the PKs.
The article is mostly about a PK'er who is understanding that there wont be easy bullying in mortals online because the carebears will never go there since there are like 200 other games they can go to. And the author don't like that thought.
The problem with PK'ers is that most of them don't really want to look for an exiting fight. They want to hurt other people who can't defend themselves. They are in fact just bullies, cowards that don't deserve any satisfaction.
And that is where the author is quite wrong. The anti PK'ers are not looking to bully someone else, they are looking for a real fight! That's what makes them better people than the reds.
Seriously I love the idea that "red" players will be bored to hell even in mortal online because there will be no easy targets to kill. They don't deserve that fun seriously. They deserve to sit down and be whupped by people who really know how to PvP.
"You are the hero our legends have foretold will save our tribe, therefore please go kill 10 pigs."
You couldn't be more wrong here, PKs poor pvpers ? What games are you playing ? A WoW clone ?
Stop playing games where you stand no chance to escape or fight back and then we will talk again. In fact I would say it is easier to grief in WoW then in any well design full pvp and full loot game. WoW is a PK zone for cowards and people who like to bully others with no risk.
In most of well design sandbox games I played, I had completely different experience. With penalties for criminals, being a PK is even more adrenaline pumping. In Lineage you had a chance to drop your items, in UO you had your criminal timer when you had a hard time to access any civilized place and stat lose if you got yourself killed in that process.
Sure some of PKers kill everything what moves, but most of them are mini maxers who know a lot about the game and are really good pvpers and know how to calculate risk.
Maybe for you carebears don't need PK'ers, but for me a sandbox without real risk/reward ratio is almost as bland as rest of MMOs. I don't see myself a PKer, more often I am hunted then I hunt, but still I know how to defend myself, avoid them or run. If necessary I can deal with a fact that guy killed me and got in 5 minutes what I was working for a last hour. They just add that additional flavour to a game, especially if by risking more ( roaming away from the safe civilization ) as a non PKer you get higher rewards, for example: access to better resources nodes, rare drops etc.
It is wrong to kill someone for breaking into your house. We live in a civilized society that offers alternatives to murder. If your life is directly threatened, and you have no alternatives, then it can be justifiable to murder someone who is trying to murder you.
The ends do not justify the means.
No. It is NOT wrong to kill someone who is breaking into your home. They have already demonstrated hostile intent by their actions. Taking counter actions is simply defense of oneself and family. A *civilized* society would expect and demand such. Its only drones and their masters who insist that everyone(except the master classes enforcers) be unarmed and helpless. But you are quite right, in that ends do not justify the means used to achieve them. Which is richly ironic when one applies that to coercive government... PvP is generally a bad idea in most MMO's. It is usually slapped on to appease the PK crowd, and thus increase the demographic the game appeals to. Which of course is one reason that MMO PvP is generally a bad idea, as it ends up being rather poorly implimented. I quite enjoy many FPS games, because they are designed from the very start as PvP games. As for the current crop of FFA/full loot games, its too little, far too late. The majority of the audience has moved on to other types of games.
You are so wrong and I take it from your statement you live either in the USA or one of the old school Sharia law countries. In said countries where I assume you live, it might be the norm to shoot someone breaking in.Yyes its legal, but that does not make shooting a robber a thing you're expected to do in a civilized society. Unless you want to exclude pretty much all countries in Europe from "civilized society", because in most EU countries (I havnt done research so I dont know if its all of them) you are not allowed to use force thats excessive when compared to the crime being comitted against you. Meaning that you WILL go to jail if you kill or even shoot at someone who is trying to rob you, if you have no reason to believe your life is in danger.
Overall to me as I would expect from most people with what I would regard as a modern humane view on others, this should be the correct way for society to work. If you need to be allowed to shoot someone who only wants some of your earthly belongings without endangering your own existence, then you probably live in a place that is not very civilized because way too many people havent got a chance to succeed in life and there fore resorts to robbery.
In conclusion, yes its fine to shoot a robber if you want to have a wild west country, but seeing as you brought "civilized" into the discussion, then no, its not fine. It belongs in the past because a civilized country gives all its citizens no matter what their social background is a chance to succeed in life, and even takes proper care of those who fail while trying, so that we dont end up in a wild west state where half the citizens are robbing others just to get food on the table.
I'm always amused by the pathetic attitudes of the *subjects* of the various European countries. You've all been so totally conditioned by your ruling classes to be Good Citizens, that you really don't understand the first thing about basic human rights. Thankfully, many of our Founders/Framers understood those basic rights. Sadly, those have been badly eroded in all too many places by the American version of your ruling class. I'd hardly term what passes for government(and hence the society that such breeds) in many such places to be *civilized'. In a civilized society, the individual and their rights *and* responsibilities are the central focus. Quite unlike far too many collectivist systems that place much more value on the abstract known as "society", rather than the individuals involved.
I note how you attempt to frame the argument above. A reasonable person(phrase of art) would be justified in assuming hostile intent on the part of those breaking into ones home. How far one goes in that defense would depend on the situation. But it naturally *would* include the option of killing them if it was warranted. It doesn't matter what tragic story one can tell about their background and current circumstances. The fact remains that they took actions that placed others life in potential danger. They should thereby expect the consequences.
If you want to troll, you need to be more subtle.
Zzulu, has it dawned on you that my response was anything but trolling? It was a reasoned response to what I consider an appalling attitude. If more people spoke up in the face of such ignorance, we wouldn't be in our current sorry situation. If anyone is trolling here it is you. Lets get back to MMO's, shall we?.
All I can say is way to get completely off the topic for many of the previous posts. This article is about a game NOT real life situations. Please take the off topic stuff to another thread and stop polluting this one.
Another great article, keep up the good work. Using the words "griefer" and "carebear" carry too many negative connotations so I will avoid using them. I will use the term reds and builders respectively instead.
The entire point of the article is that the games that feature the pk aspect of a MMO like Mortal and Darkfall immediately condemn themselves to a small niche audience. The problem is, as I see it, many of these reds start their gaming life in FPS games where death is meaningless, when they move to a situation where it isn't they continue to play the same way. Unless a game can implement significant rules to control the natural inclination of these reds to kill other players indiscriminately, they won't attract the builders.
The problem is that the size of the groups are really not proportionate either. The builders are obviously far larger than any of the other groups. The anti-red group is always the smallest because there are usually few advantages to doing so. I was part of an anti red group in UO. The sad thing was that the leader and many of my good friends eventually turned red because it was far more profitable to do so. Eve is another example of this, being a bounty hunter is probably the worst profession you can choose in the game, just no profit in it at all. Eve's problem is that the area where the pirate prey called low sec is without doubt the least populated area in the game because of too much risk for too little gain. Eve's advantage it has it's own version of Trammel with the empire region.
I have yet to see a game come up with a solution to this conundrum. Mortal Online has a better ruleset than Darkfall, but still is reluctant to put in the restrictions needed to attract a significant population of the builders, hence again the small niche status of the game.
For a game to be successful in this genre, it must attract all three groups. There is huge risk in doing so, which is why no game to date has attempted such. Eve is probably the best example of trying to balance these populations, but it too has major issues in this area, ie, there is just no incentive to hunt pirates beyond the fun of doing so.