So if I mine in a PVP area and get better ore I'm not being rewarded vs mining in a no pvp area with lower quality ore?
It was just a greater challenge to click mine?
Thanks for opening my eyes I see the truth now.
And if I come with 5 buddies, blow you up and take your ore, where is my risk? Yet, I get same reward as you.
Got the point?
The risk is Im actually bait fit and you actually just got hotdropped and lost all your ships.
Or for fantasy people, a lot of my rogue friends were stealthed nearby.
Just cause you have 4 guys with you doesn't remove your risk, it actually makes you a better target for even bigger groups. You removed most of the risk from solo players, but in turn you gained more risk vs larger groups.
From watching the kickstarter what they are offering are hub based instanced worlds with saved characters..
First I wont back a game I cant play now. I want some fun for my money. Second thats not really how the game works. Think of each world as a 1-3 month battle over a unique continent, no small game space. When the war is over its gone and you can pick from a new continent/world thats again unique and fresh to explore. With lots to explore as well. Also they have one world thats static and does not blow up.
So if I mine in a PVP area and get better ore I'm not being rewarded vs mining in a no pvp area with lower quality ore?
It was just a greater challenge to click mine?
Thanks for opening my eyes I see the truth now.
And if I come with 5 buddies, blow you up and take your ore, where is my risk? Yet, I get same reward as you.
Got the point?
Actually you made a bad point.
His risk is mining in an area where he can lose everything but if he succeeds he gets a better product. That's pretty simple.
Your risk would be if you take his items but learn that he is part of a very powerful alliance and they declare war on you for messing with one of their clannies.
The other variant is that you are part of a powerful alliance but they get together a lot of smaller guilds to trump you.
It's not a 1:1 comparison.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
From watching the kickstarter what they are offering are hub based instanced worlds with saved characters..
First I wont back a game I can play now. I want some fun for my money. Second thats not really how the game works. Think of each world as a 1-3 month battle over a unique continent, no small game space. When the war is over its gone and you can pick from a new continent/world thats again unique and fresh to explore. With lots to explore as well. Also they have one world thats static and does not blow up.
Hmm, this will be great longevity. Every 3 months a new world, with new rules and battles. Think this would be great in a PvE/PvP based game as well.
If he is not attacked because possible attackers are afraid of his alliance, where is the risk for him?
There is no risk involved, it is the bigger fish eats smaller fish game.
You are assuming that people would be afraid of his alliance.
His risk he he loses a day's work or however long it takes for him to gather precious materials.
That's still a risk and it's not a given that you will be afraid of his alliance. Your risk is if you underestimate his alliance and they make life hell for you.
An example would be in Lineage 2 where a pk alliance held one of the castles and they generally made life hell for everyone.
One might say "oh, there's no risk because they are one of the strongest alliances out there and no one alliance can take them.
and that was true.
But the Hindemith server rose up and detrhroned them much to their shock.
so again, not a 1:1 comparison. Different risks different rewards.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by SovrathYou are assuming that people would be afraid of his alliance.
Oh dear...lol
As I said before, it is a fish game. The risk does not matter, what matters is being the highest on the food chain because the biggest fish in the pool. Bigger fish you are, less enemies you have.
From the other perspective:
What would happen if there was no loss - thus no risk? When you die, you lose nothing - you keep your ship, you keep your ore.
What would be different? Nothing. That miner would be simply expelled from the area - bigger fish eats smaller fish.
There is no risk involved in there, it is solely about player co-operation.
You are assuming that people would be afraid of his alliance.
Oh dear...lol
As I said before, it is a fish game. The risk does not matter, what matters is being the highest on the food chain because the biggest fish in the pool. Bigger fish you are, less enemies you have.
From the other perspective:
What would happen if there was no loss - thus no risk? When you die, you lose nothing - you keep your ship, you keep your ore.
What would be different? Nothing. That miner would be simply expelled from the area - bigger fish eats smaller fish.
There is no risk involved in there, it is solely about player co-operation.
Sounds like there will be a lot of different ponds though. Guild vrs Guild is only one of the rings. In a Godswar you might be squaring up against a guild friend !
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
You are assuming that people would be afraid of his alliance.
Oh dear...lol
As I said before, it is a fish game. The risk does not matter, what matters is being the highest on the food chain because the biggest fish in the pool. Bigger fish you are, less enemies you have.
From the other perspective:
What would happen if there was no loss - thus no risk? When you die, you lose nothing - you keep your ship, you keep your ore.
What would be different? Nothing. That miner would be simply expelled from the area - bigger fish eats smaller fish.
There is no risk involved in there, it is solely about player co-operation.
Your point is messy.
You said that if you come and blow him up and take his ore then there is no risk for you.
He still has a situation that he very much believes is a risk. And you said that you "take his ore'. This assumes that you can blow him up and take what is his.
My example holds as it's a true to life example. A large powerful bellicose alliance that felt that it was untouchable. Though you are correct in that the larger you are the less enemies you have, as in my example, a very powerful alliance though it was untouchable.
But apparently they did not heed the actual risk which was to piss of the server. They were thrown out of their castle, hunted down and eventually they disbanded.
Apparently their actions did carry a risk.
Do you think that losing your holdings and being hunted down is not a downside of one's actions?
I'm sure they didn't do what they did because they knew they were going to pay for it.
In any case, he says it's a risk. He doesn't want to lose his ore. But he feels that he is rewarded for taking a chance.
You might not recognize his stance but it doesn't matter because it's very real to him.
And, you very well might not think that a powerful alliance/guild has any risk but in games that allow full on player vs player conflict you "risk" losing your standing, holdings, hunting grounds, items, etc.
Or let's say there isn't a poweful alliance involved. Say you are both small guilds. You take his ore but he comes back when you are only with a few of your buddies, kills you and takes your gear or something valuable that you have. Your actions provoked him and his and it's possible that there will be consequences.
I'm not sure why you don't recognize this being risk vs reward as it's a classic example of "risk vs reward".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Not really, you are just "stuck" with your perception I am pointing out as skewed...
And you haven't successfully addressed why if one's actions gain him something, and something better if he succeeds, but can lose him "something" if he fails, that that isn't "risk vs reward".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
one thing i wish they would do is make the worlds poof in different ways. Like Rift's er, rifts, sometimes a fire plague, sometimes undead, sometimes the world might freeze or grow over in fungi.
every world ending in zombie apocalypse might get.... depressing? after a while?
am i alone in that?
none the less it's a nice innovative idea that will probably get 60 bones from me.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Game looks interesting. Will say wasn't what i was expecting, all the instanced campaigns, but still looks good and will give it a go. I will say the combat reminds me nothing of Tera, more Guild wars 2 and Wildstar tbh.
Defo worth keeping an eye on
Yeah, with so many of these lobby type MMO games in the works we really need a new title or subtitle. I enjoyed Guild Wars, but I did not and still would not categorize it as a MMO. It was more a multiplayer lobby online game and this one is looking like it will follow similar themes.
This game is introducing and enhancing some great concepts, but it fails to be called a MMO(RPG).
So if I mine in a PVP area and get better ore I'm not being rewarded vs mining in a no pvp area with lower quality ore?
It was just a greater challenge to click mine?
Thanks for opening my eyes I see the truth now.
And if I come with 5 buddies, blow you up and take your ore, where is my risk? Yet, I get same reward as you.
Got the point?
The risk is Im actually bait fit and you actually just got hotdropped and lost all your ships.
Or for fantasy people, a lot of my rogue friends were stealthed nearby.
Just cause you have 4 guys with you doesn't remove your risk, it actually makes you a better target for even bigger groups. You removed most of the risk from solo players, but in turn you gained more risk vs larger groups.
No you didnt gain more risk vs larger groups. These 4 guys would then just give up and join the larger group because they dont want to get killed. Dont believe me? in SWG I played as a Rebel and in the City of Monia Imps use to come there all the time with about 20 or so people and normally there was about 12 of us rebels running around. After a few weeks of so so PVP that was going on most of the Rebels were tired of loosing to the Imps. So guess what happened? Yes just about all but maybe 3 of us because we were friends joined the Imp side. So the Imps kept coming back but sitting on their asses complaining when only 3 of us were running around and not flagging up to fight them. 3 people are not going to flag up against 30 other people. PVP JUST WILL NOT HAPPEN. PERIOD END OF STORY. A few weeks of that went by and no one even stepped into Monia because there was nothing to do no one to fight.
I can give you another situation that happened in a Sandbox MMO. I played AA and use to do trade runs with about 10 to 20 people to friedrich. Well Every night about 60+ people would sit there and wait to attack people who were carrying trade packs to turn in. Yea there would be an odd time where 80+ people would turn in however after the first 2 months that rarely happened anymore. What happened to that 10 to 20 people. Thats right they knew they couldnt win vs 60 people and getting enough people was not happening so they STOPPED going to friedrich to turn in packs. So more people joined the 60 people and soon them 60 people got bored because well No one ever came to friedrich anymore to turn in packs. PVP didnt happen nor Risk vs Reward.
So this BS that Risk VS Reward is nothing other than BS. It just does not work because people dont want to admit that today's gamer just will not play games today that puts anything they put effort into at risk of some person killing them and taking it from them. Period it just will not happen. I can see Item Decay that make take 100 or so deaths or weeks to months to break. That is not too out of the realm of workable. Until Developers realize that yes some old school things CAN work without going to the PVP Risk vs Reward drama talk we might get some traction to move forward with the MMO industry.
Graphics look cheaper than what i imagined,very low end,pretty much like Wow.
All i see is more single player game play pretending to be a mmo.The combat i hate seeing is a solo player taking on 5/6/7 foes at once and seemingly doing it easy is just bad.It also looks like for example that spinning attack can be almost spammed over and over,it looks fake when done that often,should have a longer timer for that aoe attack.
The world you fight in also looks quite bland,this again is low end graphics.
to me it definitely looks like a cross between WS and Wow and GW2 i guess although less of GW2 because all i have seen is solo footage.
I also NEVER buy into the early beta footage excuses nor people defending them because i have NEVER seen any notable changes in any game making those claims.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
one thing i wish they would do is make the worlds poof in different ways. Like Rift's er, rifts, sometimes a fire plague, sometimes undead, sometimes the world might freeze or grow over in fungi.
every world ending in zombie apocalypse might get.... depressing? after a while?
am i alone in that?
none the less it's a nice innovative idea that will probably get 60 bones from me.
Rift's ..... Rifts were great for about the first week after launch. Then the novelty wore off and you realized that if you did nothing to stop the invasion, the timer ended and everything went back to normal. No consequences, No world changing, No penalty for failing to stop the invasion.
one thing i wish they would do is make the worlds poof in different ways. Like Rift's er, rifts, sometimes a fire plague, sometimes undead, sometimes the world might freeze or grow over in fungi.
every world ending in zombie apocalypse might get.... depressing? after a while?
am i alone in that?
none the less it's a nice innovative idea that will probably get 60 bones from me.
Rift's ..... Rifts were great for about the first week after launch. Then the novelty wore off and you realized that if you did nothing to stop the invasion, the timer ended and everything went back to normal. No consequences, No world changing, No penalty for failing to stop the invasion.
I would agree with this about Rift's Rifts. They were fun for a while but then got old. Now If I made a MMO off the dungeons and dragons world of Toril. I would make a Risk vs Reward system that mattered that did not involved well if you got PKed that PKer can take your gear. Again great Idea a long time ago in the MMO world but not today. Lets talk about a REAL Risk vs Reward system.
Ok Back to Toril. So the battlehammer Dwarves mine Mithril Ore from Mithril Hall and we have a Drow invasion force coming to take over Mithril Hall. If the Drow Elves take the Hall No Mithril (That will be widely used for some of the best gear) can be mined by the goodly races only by Drow elves and their slaves. This has a DIRECT impact on crafting and if players dont work together to stop this invasion players who play goodly races will have very low Mithril supplies. Good Risk vs Reward system and forces people to take part in the EVENT. Now it should not be PVE or PVP only it should entail both PVE and PVP.
The impact this has on the world in important and is not trivial. Its not I kill player X and take his gear. Its I am involved in this world wide event and if I loss I loss control or gain control of an important part of the game. Now the loss should not be forever it just needs to be balanced to give people a chance to gain it back.
Just do not think the way they think it will work actually will.
Most likely scenario is that the strongest guild/alliance will hold the "best" area and raid all the others to get their PVP kick. which will move most to try to join the best alliance. Or quit.
it is very rare that these type situations work out in any other way.
Only game that semi works like this is planned, is EVE, which has such a huge area to play in that it is really hard if not impossible to try to attack over such distances.
Dunno, have to wait and see...but i can not picture this working as i see it, but maybe i just do not have enough info yet.
Comments
The risk is Im actually bait fit and you actually just got hotdropped and lost all your ships.
Or for fantasy people, a lot of my rogue friends were stealthed nearby.
Just cause you have 4 guys with you doesn't remove your risk, it actually makes you a better target for even bigger groups. You removed most of the risk from solo players, but in turn you gained more risk vs larger groups.
Waiting for:
The Repopulation
Albion Online
First I wont back a game I cant play now. I want some fun for my money. Second thats not really how the game works. Think of each world as a 1-3 month battle over a unique continent, no small game space. When the war is over its gone and you can pick from a new continent/world thats again unique and fresh to explore. With lots to explore as well. Also they have one world thats static and does not blow up.
Actually you made a bad point.
His risk is mining in an area where he can lose everything but if he succeeds he gets a better product. That's pretty simple.
Your risk would be if you take his items but learn that he is part of a very powerful alliance and they declare war on you for messing with one of their clannies.
The other variant is that you are part of a powerful alliance but they get together a lot of smaller guilds to trump you.
It's not a 1:1 comparison.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Hmm, this will be great longevity. Every 3 months a new world, with new rules and battles. Think this would be great in a PvE/PvP based game as well.
I don't, you just did not think it through.
If he is not attacked because possible attackers are afraid of his alliance, where is the risk for him?
There is no risk involved, it is the bigger fish eats smaller fish game.
You are assuming that people would be afraid of his alliance.
His risk he he loses a day's work or however long it takes for him to gather precious materials.
That's still a risk and it's not a given that you will be afraid of his alliance. Your risk is if you underestimate his alliance and they make life hell for you.
An example would be in Lineage 2 where a pk alliance held one of the castles and they generally made life hell for everyone.
One might say "oh, there's no risk because they are one of the strongest alliances out there and no one alliance can take them.
and that was true.
But the Hindemith server rose up and detrhroned them much to their shock.
so again, not a 1:1 comparison. Different risks different rewards.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
if you read the KS carefully. the money is going to the "core module". not everything listed on the KS campaign is being made.
Agreed.
Oh dear...lol
As I said before, it is a fish game. The risk does not matter, what matters is being the highest on the food chain because the biggest fish in the pool. Bigger fish you are, less enemies you have.
From the other perspective:
What would happen if there was no loss - thus no risk? When you die, you lose nothing - you keep your ship, you keep your ore.
What would be different? Nothing. That miner would be simply expelled from the area - bigger fish eats smaller fish.
There is no risk involved in there, it is solely about player co-operation.
Sounds like there will be a lot of different ponds though. Guild vrs Guild is only one of the rings. In a Godswar you might be squaring up against a guild friend !
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
An acerbic sense of humor is NOT allowed here.
I applaud the new thinking and use of kickbstarter.
Cartoon like graphics and action oriented graphics.....not so much
Your point is messy.
You said that if you come and blow him up and take his ore then there is no risk for you.
He still has a situation that he very much believes is a risk. And you said that you "take his ore'. This assumes that you can blow him up and take what is his.
My example holds as it's a true to life example. A large powerful bellicose alliance that felt that it was untouchable. Though you are correct in that the larger you are the less enemies you have, as in my example, a very powerful alliance though it was untouchable.
But apparently they did not heed the actual risk which was to piss of the server. They were thrown out of their castle, hunted down and eventually they disbanded.
Apparently their actions did carry a risk.
Do you think that losing your holdings and being hunted down is not a downside of one's actions?
I'm sure they didn't do what they did because they knew they were going to pay for it.
In any case, he says it's a risk. He doesn't want to lose his ore. But he feels that he is rewarded for taking a chance.
You might not recognize his stance but it doesn't matter because it's very real to him.
And, you very well might not think that a powerful alliance/guild has any risk but in games that allow full on player vs player conflict you "risk" losing your standing, holdings, hunting grounds, items, etc.
Or let's say there isn't a poweful alliance involved. Say you are both small guilds. You take his ore but he comes back when you are only with a few of your buddies, kills you and takes your gear or something valuable that you have. Your actions provoked him and his and it's possible that there will be consequences.
I'm not sure why you don't recognize this being risk vs reward as it's a classic example of "risk vs reward".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Not really, you are just "stuck" with your perception I am pointing out as skewed...
And you haven't successfully addressed why if one's actions gain him something, and something better if he succeeds, but can lose him "something" if he fails, that that isn't "risk vs reward".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
That is death penatly and has nothing to do with reward as I already pointed out...
Seems like PVP part confuses you, so let's assume PVE scenario:
1) You kill "5 star" mob, you get 1 high value item.
2) You bring 2 friends, kill "5 star mob", you get 1 high value item.
In case 1) you are rewarded for challenge, in 2) for co-operation.
Same goes for PVP and it absolutely does not matter whether there is some "loss" involved.
one thing i wish they would do is make the worlds poof in different ways. Like Rift's er, rifts, sometimes a fire plague, sometimes undead, sometimes the world might freeze or grow over in fungi.
every world ending in zombie apocalypse might get.... depressing? after a while?
am i alone in that?
none the less it's a nice innovative idea that will probably get 60 bones from me.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
Yeah, with so many of these lobby type MMO games in the works we really need a new title or subtitle. I enjoyed Guild Wars, but I did not and still would not categorize it as a MMO. It was more a multiplayer lobby online game and this one is looking like it will follow similar themes.
This game is introducing and enhancing some great concepts, but it fails to be called a MMO(RPG).
No you didnt gain more risk vs larger groups. These 4 guys would then just give up and join the larger group because they dont want to get killed. Dont believe me? in SWG I played as a Rebel and in the City of Monia Imps use to come there all the time with about 20 or so people and normally there was about 12 of us rebels running around. After a few weeks of so so PVP that was going on most of the Rebels were tired of loosing to the Imps. So guess what happened? Yes just about all but maybe 3 of us because we were friends joined the Imp side. So the Imps kept coming back but sitting on their asses complaining when only 3 of us were running around and not flagging up to fight them. 3 people are not going to flag up against 30 other people. PVP JUST WILL NOT HAPPEN. PERIOD END OF STORY. A few weeks of that went by and no one even stepped into Monia because there was nothing to do no one to fight.
I can give you another situation that happened in a Sandbox MMO. I played AA and use to do trade runs with about 10 to 20 people to friedrich. Well Every night about 60+ people would sit there and wait to attack people who were carrying trade packs to turn in. Yea there would be an odd time where 80+ people would turn in however after the first 2 months that rarely happened anymore. What happened to that 10 to 20 people. Thats right they knew they couldnt win vs 60 people and getting enough people was not happening so they STOPPED going to friedrich to turn in packs. So more people joined the 60 people and soon them 60 people got bored because well No one ever came to friedrich anymore to turn in packs. PVP didnt happen nor Risk vs Reward.
So this BS that Risk VS Reward is nothing other than BS. It just does not work because people dont want to admit that today's gamer just will not play games today that puts anything they put effort into at risk of some person killing them and taking it from them. Period it just will not happen. I can see Item Decay that make take 100 or so deaths or weeks to months to break. That is not too out of the realm of workable. Until Developers realize that yes some old school things CAN work without going to the PVP Risk vs Reward drama talk we might get some traction to move forward with the MMO industry.
Graphics look cheaper than what i imagined,very low end,pretty much like Wow.
All i see is more single player game play pretending to be a mmo.The combat i hate seeing is a solo player taking on 5/6/7 foes at once and seemingly doing it easy is just bad.It also looks like for example that spinning attack can be almost spammed over and over,it looks fake when done that often,should have a longer timer for that aoe attack.
The world you fight in also looks quite bland,this again is low end graphics.
to me it definitely looks like a cross between WS and Wow and GW2 i guess although less of GW2 because all i have seen is solo footage.
I also NEVER buy into the early beta footage excuses nor people defending them because i have NEVER seen any notable changes in any game making those claims.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Rift's ..... Rifts were great for about the first week after launch. Then the novelty wore off and you realized that if you did nothing to stop the invasion, the timer ended and everything went back to normal. No consequences, No world changing, No penalty for failing to stop the invasion.
I would agree with this about Rift's Rifts. They were fun for a while but then got old. Now If I made a MMO off the dungeons and dragons world of Toril. I would make a Risk vs Reward system that mattered that did not involved well if you got PKed that PKer can take your gear. Again great Idea a long time ago in the MMO world but not today. Lets talk about a REAL Risk vs Reward system.
Ok Back to Toril. So the battlehammer Dwarves mine Mithril Ore from Mithril Hall and we have a Drow invasion force coming to take over Mithril Hall. If the Drow Elves take the Hall No Mithril (That will be widely used for some of the best gear) can be mined by the goodly races only by Drow elves and their slaves. This has a DIRECT impact on crafting and if players dont work together to stop this invasion players who play goodly races will have very low Mithril supplies. Good Risk vs Reward system and forces people to take part in the EVENT. Now it should not be PVE or PVP only it should entail both PVE and PVP.
The impact this has on the world in important and is not trivial. Its not I kill player X and take his gear. Its I am involved in this world wide event and if I loss I loss control or gain control of an important part of the game. Now the loss should not be forever it just needs to be balanced to give people a chance to gain it back.
Just do not think the way they think it will work actually will.
Most likely scenario is that the strongest guild/alliance will hold the "best" area and raid all the others to get their PVP kick. which will move most to try to join the best alliance. Or quit.
it is very rare that these type situations work out in any other way.
Only game that semi works like this is planned, is EVE, which has such a huge area to play in that it is really hard if not impossible to try to attack over such distances.
Dunno, have to wait and see...but i can not picture this working as i see it, but maybe i just do not have enough info yet.