I think fps is like paintball, where as mmo is real war. Part of mmo is risking while fps is getting a win or loss. Many want to log in and fight, but not have to fear losing. They want the experience immediate and limited in time. These are things mmo's do not do well.
The easiest solution is to have alternate rule set servers. I am not opposed to PvP'ers having their own servers, and none of my PvE friends are either. What we want is the same type of sandbox elements without the PvP. It worked in Asheron's Call and contrary to popular belief, it worked in Ultima Online (subscriber base went way up after Trammel).
However every time this simple and elegant solution is brought up, the majority of the PvP crowd screams foul. They believe the sudden inclusion of PvE players will come flooding into their game if there is no ruleset server to accommodate the MUCH larger PvE crowd. In reality, every single time, the PvE players stay away and the game fails and fails hard.
It does work and is indeed the easiest way but it isn't the best.
The best would be to have PvP good enough to attract a large crowd without any PvE at all, focusing a game means you can focus the mechanics purely on PvP and don't have to worry about stuff like AI, taunts and so on.
The problem there is that no MMO really have done that well enough which means that PvP games are small niche games.
And don't give me the crap about people prefer PvE, FPS games started out as PvE games as well (with "Doom") but as soon as they got the mechanics good enough they attracted the majority of the players.
You just can't take the mechanics from Wow, EQ or whatever and use them directly for a PvP game, they are really made with PvE in focus and the other purely PvP mechanics ain't good enough of PvP would have been a lot larger.
I think the difference with most multi-player FPS games is that they are generally designed on the basis that it is a level playing field based on skill. I will happily spend hours running around shooting people in Halo.
As soon as you introduce levels and gear that gives some players a huge advantage over others then the small percentage of players who choose to gank without any deterrent will ruin the game for many people.
But as you say, removing the PVE focus of these games could go a long way toward improving some of these issues.
Originally posted by Stammerer It depends on what other correlations can be made, for example crime correlating with poverty levels. I think you would find a far stronger correlation there, and you may also find that those countries/ states with high levels of poverty also have harsher punishments as a rule which would render your entire hypothesis a nil result.
Again, where do I make ANY correlation?
The only hypothesis rendered a nil result is your own :P
As soon as you introduce levels and gear that gives some players a huge advantage over others then the small percentage of players who choose to gank without any deterrent will ruin the game for many people.
To be fair, online shooters do have levels, and gear although the power you get from them is much more limited than in a RPG setting.
It depends on what other correlations can be made, for example crime correlating with poverty levels. I think you would find a far stronger correlation there, and you may also find that those countries/ states with high levels of poverty also have harsher punishments as a rule which would render your entire hypothesis a nil result.
Again, where do I make ANY correlation?
The only hypothesis rendered a nil result is your own :P
The only point I was making is that you can bend most statistics to suit a given argument.
States WITH death penalty have even higher murder rate per capita.
Penalty does not deter a crime...
It depends on what other correlations can be made, for example crime correlating with poverty levels. I think you would find a far stronger correlation there, and you may also find that those countries/ states with high levels of poverty also have harsher punishments as a rule which would render your entire hypothesis a nil result.
"Following rules" is a human developmental state, so it's not so much a response to rewards and punishments as it is just a tendency for a person to follow the rules or not. There are many, many rules and laws that can be broken with a near 100% chance that there will be no punishing results, and for the most part people still follow the "rules". People reach that developmental state pretty early in life.
The problem is that a person's behavior depends as much on a person's physical environment and social environment as much as it depends on their own unique traits. Having a justice system or a set of punishments could deter particular behaviors in an MMORPG, if the "physical" and social environment in the game support that end result, or that justice system and set of punishments could cause the maladaptive behavior, and it could cause players who would otherwise enjoy the game to quit.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The perspective of a punishment is why you don't have people killing you everywhere for the $/£20 you have in your pocket (IRL).
So that is why states with capital punishment have next to none criminal homicide, right?
You are wrong, the level of punishment has no bearing on criminal behavior.
Risk vs reward concept is silly and never really works because everyone has different risk tolerance and most players tolerance is very low...thus, making the concept moot.
Really? Why do we even bother with laws then!
There is a difference between saying:
- Capital punishment isn't an efficient deterrent to crime (what you are proving, and I agree with that),
- A society would therefore work with no punishment and no justice (what you think you have proven, which you haven't).
You misunderstood the point, but it is still valid. Laws and justice are needed to regulate societies.
Moreover punishments have two functions:
- Act as a deterrent (which is more or less efficient depending on the individual, as you know),
- Remove the undesired individual from a society when they present a risk to that society (which works)
The fact that people have different risk tolerance doesn't change anything to the point. People who have high risk tolerance will attempt risky actions, people with low tolerance will be conservative.
How is that different from real life and how does that not work?
So all the speeders follow the rules. Cheating on taxes. Lying. People do not generally follow rules. People for the most part walk the line of rules not self created and will often cross that line whenever they can and reasonably think they will get away with it.
How would you describe someone that only do crafting in Darkfall that doesn't mind pvp while gathering but is never seeking it ?
Crafter.
And in Eve would you call that person a Miner even though they both represent basically the same category of player? They are engaged in primarily PvE content, and while they are not fully engaged with the PvP content like the PvP players, they are also not deterred by having that content in the game. They are casual PvP players.
A "carebear" is less likely to pick up and play Eve than someone who likes both PvE and PvP content, but primarily engages in PvE content.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Horusra So all the speeders follow the rules. Cheating on taxes. Lying. People do not generally follow rules. People for the most part walk the line of rules not self created and will often cross that line whenever they can and reasonably think they will get away with it.
The majority of any human population does follow the rules, whatever those rules happen to be for that given population. That doesn't mean everyone follows the rules.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Just like the "reward" can't be cast in rational, quantifiable terms, the "risk" can't be cast that way either. If you listen to the high-sec gankers, they never gank with characters they care about. They always use a throwaway character, an alt trained specifically for the task, who won't mind being blown up or podded. And they have enough ISK to not care about the loss of some battlecruiser. Some, like the Goons, are so rich, losses due to Concordokken have no meaning anymore.
The fact that they are using throw away characters rather proves the level of "risk" is appropriate, since it generates a fear from the player of losing their most important character. If there wasn't any risk in doing so, they would be using their main characters.
It would seem the problem is instead they can take risks with "new" characters, which they do not care about.
Originally posted by Horusra So all the speeders follow the rules. Cheating on taxes. Lying. People do not generally follow rules. People for the most part walk the line of rules not self created and will often cross that line whenever they can and reasonably think they will get away with it.
The majority of any human population does follow the rules, whatever those rules happen to be for that given population. That doesn't mean everyone follows the rules.
Well, I will tell you the major difference between "real world" and "virtual world" regarding that topic, though.
In a virtual world, the developer is "god" and creates the actual "physical world limitations". So for example, in GW1, nobody can jump. Because the developer said so.
Now in the real world, say some hypothetical country decides that, from today, nobody can jump. You can still do it, as in "physically" do it. There isn't an inherent limitation that prevents you from doing so. And so the best way to prevent people from jumping is to trying to catch them jumping and punishing them for doing so.
Which is my point.
"Carebears" want option 1, where the world sets the limits so that everything is fair from the start.
I prefer option 2, where the player sets the limits (the developer allows for additional actions in their framework) and the players can also be punished for their actions if they get caught.
Originally posted by Horusra Liking and tolerating are two different things
Why would anyone merely tolerate stuff in a game? There are so many entertainment option that if i don't like anything in a game, i can easily find another game, or something else to do.
The main problem with EVE online is the reputation the game has gained as a heaven for gankers and hell for new players. Every time you ask someone who is no playing or has never play EVE online why they dont the vast majority says because the game is a gankfest.
Sadly that is the truth. I played Eve for few days and I quit playing not because of ganking but because I didnt like the long wait for skill learning.
Sadly that is the truth. I played Eve for few days and I quit playing not because of ganking but because I didnt like the long wait for skill learning.
well .. i did too but i quite because of the easy-mode pve combat, and lackbuster very boring missions.
Sadly that is the truth. I played Eve for few days and I quit playing not because of ganking but because I didnt like the long wait for skill learning.
well .. i did too but i quite because of the easy-mode pve combat, and lackbuster very boring missions.
That too, I did couple of the go kill pirate missions and it was like what?
Originally posted by Horusra So all the speeders follow the rules. Cheating on taxes. Lying. People do not generally follow rules. People for the most part walk the line of rules not self created and will often cross that line whenever they can and reasonably think they will get away with it.
The majority of any human population does follow the rules, whatever those rules happen to be for that given population. That doesn't mean everyone follows the rules.
Well, I will tell you the major difference between "real world" and "virtual world" regarding that topic, though.
In a virtual world, the developer is "god" and creates the actual "physical world limitations". So for example, in GW1, nobody can jump. Because the developer said so.
Now in the real world, say some hypothetical country decides that, from today, nobody can jump. You can still do it, as in "physically" do it. There isn't an inherent limitation that prevents you from doing so. And so the best way to prevent people from jumping is to trying to catch them jumping and punishing them for doing so.
Which is my point.
"Carebears" want option 1, where the world sets the limits so that everything is fair from the start.
I prefer option 2, where the player sets the limits (the developer allows for additional actions in their framework) and the players can also be punished for their actions if they get caught.
If they get caught? You mean after they "go red"? How is that a player setting limits? The developer is obviously setting the limits, and players are responding to stimuli in the environment, just like they would in any other game. The developers of game "option 2" have just set a different set of limits and allowed a different set of things to do.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Just like the "reward" can't be cast in rational, quantifiable terms, the "risk" can't be cast that way either. If you listen to the high-sec gankers, they never gank with characters they care about. They always use a throwaway character, an alt trained specifically for the task, who won't mind being blown up or podded. And they have enough ISK to not care about the loss of some battlecruiser. Some, like the Goons, are so rich, losses due to Concordokken have no meaning anymore.
The fact that they are using throw away characters rather proves the level of "risk" is appropriate, since it generates a fear from the player of losing their most important character. If there wasn't any risk in doing so, they would be using their main characters.
It would seem the problem is instead they can take risks with "new" characters, which they do not care about.
It is an appropriate disincentive if you care. But if you don't give a sh!t, either because you never did, or you bought a "get out of giving a sh!t free" card, it doesn't matter.
Probably the griefer's greatest advantage is his ability not to give a sh!t about playing the game. I've seen it in games like Minecraft and Space Engineers especially, where the game tends to attract builders instead of destroyers. When you just don't give a sh!t about anything but making players miserable, you tend to be very good at making players miserable. Players who care about what's going on don't do that.
And that's the problem I have when the PKers accuse the so-called carebears for "taking the game too seriously," as if not giving a sh!t is how you ought to play. The problem, as I see it, isn't so much that players take the game too seriosly. It's that there is a certain contingent that doesn't take the game seriously enough. Because when we start down that road, nothing good ever gets done, nothing substantial ever gets gained and there's no reason to even stay.
And, really, the only reason a lot of l0l0gaggerz in EVE, or anywhere else, get away with doing what they do is because they just don't care...not about immersion, not about reputation, not about playing the game. They just want cheap gimmicks and l0lz. And, sadly, part of the problem with having complex systems, like what you find in MMOs, is that they are always very vulnerable to getting mucked up by folks who just want cheap lulz. After all, the combat engine doesn't make the distinction between "legit" and "cheap." One in-game pile of currency is just as good as the other. And a publisher isn't going to care if you spend your $15 to grief, or if you spend your $15 to play the game they gave you.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
If they get caught? You mean after they "go red"? How is that a player setting limits? The developer is obviously setting the limits, and players are responding to stimuli in the environment, just like they would in any other game. The developers of game "option 2" have just set a different set of limits and allowed a different set of things to do.
Yeh .. it boils down to the dev set up different rules, and players choose what game that want to play.
Originally posted by Horusra So all the speeders follow the rules. Cheating on taxes. Lying. People do not generally follow rules. People for the most part walk the line of rules not self created and will often cross that line whenever they can and reasonably think they will get away with it.
The majority of any human population does follow the rules, whatever those rules happen to be for that given population. That doesn't mean everyone follows the rules.
Well, I will tell you the major difference between "real world" and "virtual world" regarding that topic, though.
In a virtual world, the developer is "god" and creates the actual "physical world limitations". So for example, in GW1, nobody can jump. Because the developer said so.
Now in the real world, say some hypothetical country decides that, from today, nobody can jump. You can still do it, as in "physically" do it. There isn't an inherent limitation that prevents you from doing so. And so the best way to prevent people from jumping is to trying to catch them jumping and punishing them for doing so.
Which is my point.
"Carebears" want option 1, where the world sets the limits so that everything is fair from the start.
I prefer option 2, where the player sets the limits (the developer allows for additional actions in their framework) and the players can also be punished for their actions if they get caught.
I actually prefer option 2 as well in theory but in practice option 2 is just not workable. PvP games just do not allow players to implement the levels of punishment that would be suffiicient enough to discourage 'inappropriate' behaviour. Thus if you want to get rid of that behaviour, you end up supporting option 1 instead.
I actually prefer option 2 as well in theory but in practice option 2 is just not workable. PvP games just do not allow players to implement the levels of punishment that would be suffiicient enough to discourage 'inappropriate' behaviour. Thus if you want to get rid of that behaviour, you end up supporting option 1 instead.
In fact, the whole discussion is weird. If you don't want a behavior, just make it impossible in a game. Why have this whole thing about punishment and what-not.
Originally posted by askdaboss The fact that people have different risk tolerance doesn't change anything to the point. People who have high risk tolerance will attempt risky actions, people with low tolerance will be conservative.How is that different from real life and how does that not work?
It does change everything!
Risk tolerance implies what RISK level is acceptable for player, meaning that players will not engage in risk activity regardless of reward.
The blinding proof are "carebears", your player base majority.
It is one of the first steps in risk management - setting up your risk tolerance, assets you do not want to risk no matter what. Players have this bar generely very low, they do not like to lose their pixels.
Comments
I think the difference with most multi-player FPS games is that they are generally designed on the basis that it is a level playing field based on skill. I will happily spend hours running around shooting people in Halo.
As soon as you introduce levels and gear that gives some players a huge advantage over others then the small percentage of players who choose to gank without any deterrent will ruin the game for many people.
But as you say, removing the PVE focus of these games could go a long way toward improving some of these issues.
Again, where do I make ANY correlation?
The only hypothesis rendered a nil result is your own :P
To be fair, online shooters do have levels, and gear although the power you get from them is much more limited than in a RPG setting.
The only point I was making is that you can bend most statistics to suit a given argument.
"Following rules" is a human developmental state, so it's not so much a response to rewards and punishments as it is just a tendency for a person to follow the rules or not. There are many, many rules and laws that can be broken with a near 100% chance that there will be no punishing results, and for the most part people still follow the "rules". People reach that developmental state pretty early in life.
The problem is that a person's behavior depends as much on a person's physical environment and social environment as much as it depends on their own unique traits. Having a justice system or a set of punishments could deter particular behaviors in an MMORPG, if the "physical" and social environment in the game support that end result, or that justice system and set of punishments could cause the maladaptive behavior, and it could cause players who would otherwise enjoy the game to quit.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Really? Why do we even bother with laws then!
There is a difference between saying:
- Capital punishment isn't an efficient deterrent to crime (what you are proving, and I agree with that),
- A society would therefore work with no punishment and no justice (what you think you have proven, which you haven't).
You misunderstood the point, but it is still valid. Laws and justice are needed to regulate societies.
Moreover punishments have two functions:
- Act as a deterrent (which is more or less efficient depending on the individual, as you know),
- Remove the undesired individual from a society when they present a risk to that society (which works)
The fact that people have different risk tolerance doesn't change anything to the point. People who have high risk tolerance will attempt risky actions, people with low tolerance will be conservative.
How is that different from real life and how does that not work?
And in Eve would you call that person a Miner even though they both represent basically the same category of player? They are engaged in primarily PvE content, and while they are not fully engaged with the PvP content like the PvP players, they are also not deterred by having that content in the game. They are casual PvP players.
A "carebear" is less likely to pick up and play Eve than someone who likes both PvE and PvP content, but primarily engages in PvE content.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The majority of any human population does follow the rules, whatever those rules happen to be for that given population. That doesn't mean everyone follows the rules.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The fact that they are using throw away characters rather proves the level of "risk" is appropriate, since it generates a fear from the player of losing their most important character. If there wasn't any risk in doing so, they would be using their main characters.
It would seem the problem is instead they can take risks with "new" characters, which they do not care about.
Well, I will tell you the major difference between "real world" and "virtual world" regarding that topic, though.
In a virtual world, the developer is "god" and creates the actual "physical world limitations". So for example, in GW1, nobody can jump. Because the developer said so.
Now in the real world, say some hypothetical country decides that, from today, nobody can jump. You can still do it, as in "physically" do it. There isn't an inherent limitation that prevents you from doing so. And so the best way to prevent people from jumping is to trying to catch them jumping and punishing them for doing so.
Which is my point.
"Carebears" want option 1, where the world sets the limits so that everything is fair from the start.
I prefer option 2, where the player sets the limits (the developer allows for additional actions in their framework) and the players can also be punished for their actions if they get caught.
Why would anyone merely tolerate stuff in a game? There are so many entertainment option that if i don't like anything in a game, i can easily find another game, or something else to do.
The main problem with EVE online is the reputation the game has gained as a heaven for gankers and hell for new players. Every time you ask someone who is no playing or has never play EVE online why they dont the vast majority says because the game is a gankfest.
Sadly that is the truth. I played Eve for few days and I quit playing not because of ganking but because I didnt like the long wait for skill learning.
want 7 free days of playing? Try this
http://www.swtor.com/r/ZptVnY
well .. i did too but i quite because of the easy-mode pve combat, and lackbuster very boring missions.
That too, I did couple of the go kill pirate missions and it was like what?
want 7 free days of playing? Try this
http://www.swtor.com/r/ZptVnY
If Eve didn't have carebears mining and making the ships and modules, what would the so called pvp'rs fly?
Eve works because pvp'rs blow stuff up and industrialists make stuff to get blown up.
Remove either one and it collapses.
If they get caught? You mean after they "go red"? How is that a player setting limits? The developer is obviously setting the limits, and players are responding to stimuli in the environment, just like they would in any other game. The developers of game "option 2" have just set a different set of limits and allowed a different set of things to do.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It is an appropriate disincentive if you care. But if you don't give a sh!t, either because you never did, or you bought a "get out of giving a sh!t free" card, it doesn't matter.
Probably the griefer's greatest advantage is his ability not to give a sh!t about playing the game. I've seen it in games like Minecraft and Space Engineers especially, where the game tends to attract builders instead of destroyers. When you just don't give a sh!t about anything but making players miserable, you tend to be very good at making players miserable. Players who care about what's going on don't do that.
And that's the problem I have when the PKers accuse the so-called carebears for "taking the game too seriously," as if not giving a sh!t is how you ought to play. The problem, as I see it, isn't so much that players take the game too seriosly. It's that there is a certain contingent that doesn't take the game seriously enough. Because when we start down that road, nothing good ever gets done, nothing substantial ever gets gained and there's no reason to even stay.
And, really, the only reason a lot of l0l0gaggerz in EVE, or anywhere else, get away with doing what they do is because they just don't care...not about immersion, not about reputation, not about playing the game. They just want cheap gimmicks and l0lz. And, sadly, part of the problem with having complex systems, like what you find in MMOs, is that they are always very vulnerable to getting mucked up by folks who just want cheap lulz. After all, the combat engine doesn't make the distinction between "legit" and "cheap." One in-game pile of currency is just as good as the other. And a publisher isn't going to care if you spend your $15 to grief, or if you spend your $15 to play the game they gave you.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Yeh .. it boils down to the dev set up different rules, and players choose what game that want to play.
I actually prefer option 2 as well in theory but in practice option 2 is just not workable. PvP games just do not allow players to implement the levels of punishment that would be suffiicient enough to discourage 'inappropriate' behaviour. Thus if you want to get rid of that behaviour, you end up supporting option 1 instead.
In fact, the whole discussion is weird. If you don't want a behavior, just make it impossible in a game. Why have this whole thing about punishment and what-not.
If you want the behavior, why punish it?
It does change everything!
Risk tolerance implies what RISK level is acceptable for player, meaning that players will not engage in risk activity regardless of reward.
The blinding proof are "carebears", your player base majority.
It is one of the first steps in risk management - setting up your risk tolerance, assets you do not want to risk no matter what. Players have this bar generely very low, they do not like to lose their pixels.