There are players types. But they are not PvPers and PvErs. And no. In fact the PvE disrupts the MMOs. You assume that in the MMO there should be a room for solo and safe character progression, in fact single player RPG. Well if you put such a thing in a MMO game, obviously it cannot coexist with cooperation and competition of any kind. So the so called PvE will disrupt not only the PvP, but also the cooperative gameplay - even here you can read endless complains of looking/need of group in the games and forcing grouping.
You must not punish the players or change the rules so some of them to take advantage and others disadvantage. This is unfair. What you can do is to implement risk - so consequences. But the risk should be equal for all and related to the rewards. So in a combat competition the attacker and the defender shall play under the same rules, and the same risk/reward ratio.
Yes there are. There are literally players who do not PVP or don't PVE, some dabble and some do both equally. There are no fast and hard rules to how MMORPG play. UO and SWG had no forced grouping and you had some of the best communities for better rand worst.
Your idea that you must do everything together is just silly. Do you use your inventory together? Do want to force crafting together? Do you want to force players to share property and gear? There is room for individualism in MMORPG without ruining the interdependency. Combat is no exception. Just like in real life I don't have to share everything.
Developers always punish players. If I am a bad player who dies on platforming the game rules punishment. I get better or die. If being reckless in combat gets me killed. The game punishes me. Just like if you kill random players outside of the developers desired scope the game punishes you. There are no separate rules we all play under them. It's just your choices.
There are players types. But they are not PvPers and PvErs. And no. In fact the PvE disrupts the MMOs. You assume that in the MMO there should be a room for solo and safe character progression, in fact single player RPG. Well if you put such a thing in a MMO game, obviously it cannot coexist with cooperation and competition of any kind. So the so called PvE will disrupt not only the PvP, but also the cooperative gameplay - even here you can read endless complains of looking/need of group in the games and forcing grouping.
You must not punish the players or change the rules so some of them to take advantage and others disadvantage. This is unfair. What you can do is to implement risk - so consequences. But the risk should be equal for all and related to the rewards. So in a combat competition the attacker and the defender shall play under the same rules, and the same risk/reward ratio.
Yes there are. There are literally players who do not PVP or don't PVE, some dabble and some do both equally. There are no fast and hard rules to how MMORPG play. UO and SWG had no forced grouping and you had some of the best communities for better rand worst.
Your idea that you must do everything together is just silly. Do you use your inventory together? Do want to force crafting together? Do you want to force players to share property and gear? There is room for individualism in MMORPG without ruining the interdependency. Combat is no exception. Just like in real life I don't have to share everything.
Developers always punish players. If I am a bad player who dies on platforming the game rules punishment. I get better or die. If being reckless in combat gets me killed. The game punishes me. Just like if you kill random players outside of the developers desired scope the game punishes you. There are no separate rules we all play under them. It's just your choices.
There are not. PvE and PvP both are RP. The fact the players cannot craft, use inventory, share gear and etc. together in most MMOs is actually a big issue. You mistake punishment with risk. There is a difference. Risk is equal to all. Punishment is when you put special rules for some. And as it is a MMO, when you punish a player, another player takes advantage. You clearly want separate rules for the attacker and the defender with different risk/reward ratios. This is done in many games by incompetent developers and the results are obvious. If the risk is higher for the defender he defends, but all the players attack chaotically - rare case, Tera. And vice versa - if the risk is higher for the attacker the OW PvP vanish, which is the common case. The risk reward ratio should be equal, if you want fair game. Forget the RP, the PvP, the PvE, and you will see the games as they actually are - systems of rules, goals, tools.
Risk is a punishment. How do you give players risk without losing something? Risk comes from a punishment for gameplay decisions or lack there of.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Risk is a punishment. How do you give players risk without losing something? Risk comes from a punishment for gameplay decisions or lack there of.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Risk is not a punishment, it is a source of challenge and fun. Without the risk the games are pointless, as there will not be progression and illusion of accomplishment. To lose in a game is not a punishment.
Why attacking of craftsman is easy? Why the attackers are right back? This is total nonsense. You take some games and use them as universal example. And no. The risk in the case you point is not equal. You put a rule, that the risk is higher for the attacker, and lower or none for the defender. So why any idiot will attack? Probably there will be some delusional RP PvPers or very bored players. But in general all rational players will not attack, so there will not be OW PvP.
We are talking about games. In the real life you will be punished if you attack another person. That is how the society guarantees the social order. The violence is not part of that order. If it was, it would not be punished.
But the games are closed systems. In the games if you allow the PK it is part of the game. So if you punish the players for PK, why you allowed it?
Government is always about violence. You are kept in line and follow the law or you are killed or imprisoned. You don't pay taxes and men with guns come and take it or you.
Every game I have played that allows you to kill other players has players kill other players. I have literally seen friends as kids have fist fights escalated from fighting in Battle Toads. That certainly isn't a PVP game but it allowed it. Fights happened just from someone being an ass.
If you have no rules of engagement the minority will force the majority into an engagement. It always has happened unless there are rules to stop or deter.
Risk comes from a form of punishment for player behavior or there is no risk. If nothing happens for me to for not making a jump there is no risk. If i died and lose my stuff in a canyon forever that is a risk. The risk is enforced by punishment. Again, if you aren't punished for failing at a risky activity there is no risk.
Risk is a punishment. How do you give players risk without losing something? Risk comes from a punishment for gameplay decisions or lack there of.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Risk is not a punishment, it is a source of challenge and fun. Without the risk the games are pointless, as there will not be progression and illusion of accomplishment. To lose in a game is not a punishment.
Why attacking of craftsman is easy? Why the attackers are right back? This is total nonsense. You take some games and use them as universal example. And no. The risk in the case you point is not equal. You put a rule, that the risk is higher for the attacker, and lower or none for the defender. So why any idiot will attack? Probably there will be some delusional RP PvPers or very bored players. But in general all rational players will not attack, so there will not be OW PvP.
We are talking about games. In the real life you will be punished if you attack another person. That is how the society guarantees the social order. The violence is not part of that order. If it was, it would not be punished.
But the games are closed systems. In the games if you allow the PK it is part of the game. So if you punish the players for PK, why you allowed it?
Government is always about violence. You are kept in line and follow the law or you are killed or imprisoned. You don't pay taxes and men with guns come and take it or you.
Every game I have played that allows you to kill other players has players kill other players. I have literally seen friends as kids have fist fights escalated from fighting in Battle Toads. That certainly isn't a PVP game but it allowed it. Fights happened just from someone being an ass.
If you have no rules of engagement the minority will force the majority into an engagement. It always has happened unless there are rules to stop or deter.
Risk comes from a form of punishment for player behavior or there is no risk. If nothing happens for me to for not making a jump there is no risk. If i died and lose my stuff in a canyon forever that is a risk. The risk is enforced by punishment. Again, if you aren't punished for failing at a risky activity there is no risk.
So the government of Switzerland or Luxembourg is about violence? Like when we talk about the games you take some particular case and use it like an universal example. Approach which is simply wrong.
You start with the presumption of singleplayer RPG, and then debate what if they add some MMO elements or even OW. Well, it will not work well or it will not work at all.
PK is not risky activity. It becomes such if it is punished. But again, if the game is well made, it will not happen, or will be so rare, that will not matter.
Please try to think abstract, about the games in general, instead about a particular game. Can you?
Yes, all governments operate with the threat of violence or imprisonment. There is no government that maintains order I can openly kill people and not be killed or locked up.
No you just have an unusual view that all MMORPG must be multiplayer all times. It simply is not required.
I think you are the one who is ridged on view. MMORPG means different things go different people. Sandbox and interdependent community is more important to me than requiring grouped combat. MMORPG to me should be about the virtual world. In the real world I am not forced to group to go to the grocery store. I don't want go require people to group up to visit a crafting store on the other side of town.
Why do they keep making them? well i dont know, but i am glad they do continue making them, because all i need is one good open world full loot PvP mmorpg and thats it, so i hope the market gets flooded with them.
For example; same thing when they make sequels to old movies like Predator for example, you know that the movie will probably suck, but i dont have to watch them if they do, so just keep making them i dont need to pay attention to them if they suck, but the more they keep making them the bigger chance there is that one game/movie gets it right.
Risk is a punishment. How do you give players risk without losing something? Risk comes from a punishment for gameplay decisions or lack there of.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Risk is not a punishment, it is a source of challenge and fun. Without the risk the games are pointless, as there will not be progression and illusion of accomplishment. To lose in a game is not a punishment.
Why attacking of craftsman is easy? Why the attackers are right back? This is total nonsense. You take some games and use them as universal example. And no. The risk in the case you point is not equal. You put a rule, that the risk is higher for the attacker, and lower or none for the defender. So why any idiot will attack? Probably there will be some delusional RP PvPers or very bored players. But in general all rational players will not attack, so there will not be OW PvP.
We are talking about games. In the real life you will be punished if you attack another person. That is how the society guarantees the social order. The violence is not part of that order. If it was, it would not be punished.
But the games are closed systems. In the games if you allow the PK it is part of the game. So if you punish the players for PK, why you allowed it?
The death to kill ratio for attacker is absurdly high. So what exactly are attacker risking?
Most of the attacker only attack if they know they going to win. Else they put their character in safe area or won't even login. Since no one like losing something. Even attacker.
And like I said before, your mentality precisely show why these type of game fail. Even ganker don't want to loss things. Most of the ganker in these game pick on newbie and crafter with no chance of fighting back.
Risk is a punishment. How do you give players risk without losing something? Risk comes from a punishment for gameplay decisions or lack there of.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Risk is not a punishment, it is a source of challenge and fun. Without the risk the games are pointless, as there will not be progression and illusion of accomplishment. To lose in a game is not a punishment.
Why attacking of craftsman is easy? Why the attackers are right back? This is total nonsense. You take some games and use them as universal example. And no. The risk in the case you point is not equal. You put a rule, that the risk is higher for the attacker, and lower or none for the defender. So why any idiot will attack? Probably there will be some delusional RP PvPers or very bored players. But in general all rational players will not attack, so there will not be OW PvP.
We are talking about games. In the real life you will be punished if you attack another person. That is how the society guarantees the social order. The violence is not part of that order. If it was, it would not be punished.
But the games are closed systems. In the games if you allow the PK it is part of the game. So if you punish the players for PK, why you allowed it?
The death to kill ratio for attacker is absurdly high. So what exactly are attacker risking?
Most of the attacker only attack if they know they going to win. Else they put their character in safe area or won't even login. Since no one like losing something. Even attacker.
And like I said before, your mentality precisely show why these type of game fail. Even ganker don't want to loss things. Most of the ganker in these game pick on newbie and crafter with no chance of fighting back.
You are quoting metrics without citing any examples.
For what games is the K:D ratio for the attacker absurdly high (link to source please)? What would a reasonable ratio be?
A lot depends on game mechanics. There are plenty of reasons an attacker might initiate without guaranteed victory. Again, risk.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Risk is a punishment. How do you give players risk without losing something? Risk comes from a punishment for gameplay decisions or lack there of.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Risk is not a punishment, it is a source of challenge and fun. Without the risk the games are pointless, as there will not be progression and illusion of accomplishment. To lose in a game is not a punishment.
Why attacking of craftsman is easy? Why the attackers are right back? This is total nonsense. You take some games and use them as universal example. And no. The risk in the case you point is not equal. You put a rule, that the risk is higher for the attacker, and lower or none for the defender. So why any idiot will attack? Probably there will be some delusional RP PvPers or very bored players. But in general all rational players will not attack, so there will not be OW PvP.
We are talking about games. In the real life you will be punished if you attack another person. That is how the society guarantees the social order. The violence is not part of that order. If it was, it would not be punished.
But the games are closed systems. In the games if you allow the PK it is part of the game. So if you punish the players for PK, why you allowed it?
The death to kill ratio for attacker is absurdly high. So what exactly are attacker risking?
Most of the attacker only attack if they know they going to win. Else they put their character in safe area or won't even login. Since no one like losing something. Even attacker.
And like I said before, your mentality precisely show why these type of game fail. Even ganker don't want to loss things. Most of the ganker in these game pick on newbie and crafter with no chance of fighting back.
You are quoting metrics without citing any examples.
For what games is the K:D ratio for the attacker absurdly high (link to source please)? What would a reasonable ratio be?
A lot depends on game mechanics. There are plenty of reasons an attacker might initiate without guaranteed victory. Again, risk.
Most games I have played the attacker usually has the advantage. You are attacking when they are alone and you in a group. Attack while they are distracted or injured. You use openers that give you an advantage. If the game isn't PVP the character may not be designed to fight in PVP.
Come on as someone who has done PVP for a while I would say yes attacks have advantages in general.
Risk is a punishment. How do you give players risk without losing something? Risk comes from a punishment for gameplay decisions or lack there of.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Risk is not a punishment, it is a source of challenge and fun. Without the risk the games are pointless, as there will not be progression and illusion of accomplishment. To lose in a game is not a punishment.
Why attacking of craftsman is easy? Why the attackers are right back? This is total nonsense. You take some games and use them as universal example. And no. The risk in the case you point is not equal. You put a rule, that the risk is higher for the attacker, and lower or none for the defender. So why any idiot will attack? Probably there will be some delusional RP PvPers or very bored players. But in general all rational players will not attack, so there will not be OW PvP.
We are talking about games. In the real life you will be punished if you attack another person. That is how the society guarantees the social order. The violence is not part of that order. If it was, it would not be punished.
But the games are closed systems. In the games if you allow the PK it is part of the game. So if you punish the players for PK, why you allowed it?
The death to kill ratio for attacker is absurdly high. So what exactly are attacker risking?
Most of the attacker only attack if they know they going to win. Else they put their character in safe area or won't even login. Since no one like losing something. Even attacker.
And like I said before, your mentality precisely show why these type of game fail. Even ganker don't want to loss things. Most of the ganker in these game pick on newbie and crafter with no chance of fighting back.
You are quoting metrics without citing any examples.
For what games is the K:D ratio for the attacker absurdly high (link to source please)? What would a reasonable ratio be?
A lot depends on game mechanics. There are plenty of reasons an attacker might initiate without guaranteed victory. Again, risk.
Most games I have played the attacker usually has the advantage. You are attacking when they are alone and you in a group. Attack while they are distracted or injured. You use openers that give you an advantage. If the game isn't PVP the character may not be designed to fight in PVP.
Come on as someone who has done PVP for a while I would say yes attacks have advantages in general.
So, basically, if you use Sun Tzu's Art of War you have an advantage. Tides can easily turn, though.
There may also be reasons you don't do that; for example if you do not wish to escalate a conflict you may engage with minimal force. Sometimes rival groups will "pair off" even when one side outnumbers in order to set tacit rules of engagement.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
But the rule wasn't the same to start with. The wolf are free to kill anyone they want. The sheep don't fight back unless attacked.
If things are really equal. The wolf should have same kill/death ratio. But usually they kill far more than death.
Don't L2 make chaotic people drop item if they pk too often? UO have stats loss for red players. So that kind of system is already there.
No. You had to have more than 3 PKs. Also it was relatively easy to clean PKs. The karma also was relatively easy to clean. In general the drop system was cool, and very abused, as it was a special rule. So players often griefed spoilers - dwarfs who collected resources. And when the spoiler made 4 PKs the griefers PK him, to take the resources. L2 is a game with very bold vertical gear and character progression. So the "fair" fight never existed there. Still the chaotic PKs did not happen often. Much more important than the PK system was the death penalty - experience loss. And most important was the clan system. You did not PK, because that could lead to clan war. In fact after GoD, the clans were not so important anymore and the PK penalty was much higher, but that let to more PKs.
If you are sheep, that is in your mind, it is not in the game. Except if it is a game with wolfs and sheeps
Your L2 server sounds boring as hell. We had heaps of Pk's, we had a clan called Red Army because they stayed red all the time. Which by the way, if your name was red (chaotic) you stood a chance of dropping items.
The mechanics of cleaning PK's was easy but the practice was much harder since anyone could (and would on my server) attack you.
L2 is the closest I have seen thus far to OWPVP done correctly.
Post edited by Hatefull on
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Risk is a punishment. How do you give players risk without losing something? Risk comes from a punishment for gameplay decisions or lack there of.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Risk is not a punishment, it is a source of challenge and fun. Without the risk the games are pointless, as there will not be progression and illusion of accomplishment. To lose in a game is not a punishment.
Why attacking of craftsman is easy? Why the attackers are right back? This is total nonsense. You take some games and use them as universal example. And no. The risk in the case you point is not equal. You put a rule, that the risk is higher for the attacker, and lower or none for the defender. So why any idiot will attack? Probably there will be some delusional RP PvPers or very bored players. But in general all rational players will not attack, so there will not be OW PvP.
We are talking about games. In the real life you will be punished if you attack another person. That is how the society guarantees the social order. The violence is not part of that order. If it was, it would not be punished.
But the games are closed systems. In the games if you allow the PK it is part of the game. So if you punish the players for PK, why you allowed it?
The death to kill ratio for attacker is absurdly high. So what exactly are attacker risking?
Most of the attacker only attack if they know they going to win. Else they put their character in safe area or won't even login. Since no one like losing something. Even attacker.
And like I said before, your mentality precisely show why these type of game fail. Even ganker don't want to loss things. Most of the ganker in these game pick on newbie and crafter with no chance of fighting back.
You are quoting metrics without citing any examples.
For what games is the K:D ratio for the attacker absurdly high (link to source please)? What would a reasonable ratio be?
A lot depends on game mechanics. There are plenty of reasons an attacker might initiate without guaranteed victory. Again, risk.
Most games I have played the attacker usually has the advantage. You are attacking when they are alone and you in a group. Attack while they are distracted or injured. You use openers that give you an advantage. If the game isn't PVP the character may not be designed to fight in PVP.
Come on as someone who has done PVP for a while I would say yes attacks have advantages in general.
So, basically, if you use Sun Tzu's Art of War you have an advantage. Tides can easily turn, though.
There may also be reasons you don't do that; for example if you do not wish to escalate a conflict you may engage with minimal force. Sometimes rival groups will "pair off" even when one side outnumbers in order to set tacit rules of engagement.
Attackers usually win because they are fighting people who don't pvp at all. Newbies, miners, pvers. Many who don't even want to pvp at all.
If both side actually want to fight. The fight would be consensual. People would be just pvping. And I won't call one side attackers.
Risk is a punishment. How do you give players risk without losing something? Risk comes from a punishment for gameplay decisions or lack there of.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Risk is not a punishment, it is a source of challenge and fun. Without the risk the games are pointless, as there will not be progression and illusion of accomplishment. To lose in a game is not a punishment.
Why attacking of craftsman is easy? Why the attackers are right back? This is total nonsense. You take some games and use them as universal example. And no. The risk in the case you point is not equal. You put a rule, that the risk is higher for the attacker, and lower or none for the defender. So why any idiot will attack? Probably there will be some delusional RP PvPers or very bored players. But in general all rational players will not attack, so there will not be OW PvP.
We are talking about games. In the real life you will be punished if you attack another person. That is how the society guarantees the social order. The violence is not part of that order. If it was, it would not be punished.
But the games are closed systems. In the games if you allow the PK it is part of the game. So if you punish the players for PK, why you allowed it?
The death to kill ratio for attacker is absurdly high. So what exactly are attacker risking?
Most of the attacker only attack if they know they going to win. Else they put their character in safe area or won't even login. Since no one like losing something. Even attacker.
And like I said before, your mentality precisely show why these type of game fail. Even ganker don't want to loss things. Most of the ganker in these game pick on newbie and crafter with no chance of fighting back.
You are quoting metrics without citing any examples.
For what games is the K:D ratio for the attacker absurdly high (link to source please)? What would a reasonable ratio be?
A lot depends on game mechanics. There are plenty of reasons an attacker might initiate without guaranteed victory. Again, risk.
Most games I have played the attacker usually has the advantage. You are attacking when they are alone and you in a group. Attack while they are distracted or injured. You use openers that give you an advantage. If the game isn't PVP the character may not be designed to fight in PVP.
Come on as someone who has done PVP for a while I would say yes attacks have advantages in general.
So, basically, if you use Sun Tzu's Art of War you have an advantage. Tides can easily turn, though.
There may also be reasons you don't do that; for example if you do not wish to escalate a conflict you may engage with minimal force. Sometimes rival groups will "pair off" even when one side outnumbers in order to set tacit rules of engagement.
Attackers usually win because they are fighting people who don't pvp at all. Newbies, miners, pvers. Many who don't even want to pvp at all.
If both side actually want to fight. The fight would be consensual. People would be just pvping. And I won't call one side attackers.
In a open world PvP game there is not always a clear delineation between "pvers" and "pvpers"; it's not really meaningful to talk about those who never PvP because the game has PvP in it.
Some may avoid it, but it's still there; it's not as if there is a box to check.
I disagree that attackers usually fight those who don't want to; sometimes that happens but often it's two armed forces duking it out for supremacy or over valuable loot. There are myriad reasons to fight.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Risk is a punishment. How do you give players risk without losing something? Risk comes from a punishment for gameplay decisions or lack there of.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Risk is not a punishment, it is a source of challenge and fun. Without the risk the games are pointless, as there will not be progression and illusion of accomplishment. To lose in a game is not a punishment.
Why attacking of craftsman is easy? Why the attackers are right back? This is total nonsense. You take some games and use them as universal example. And no. The risk in the case you point is not equal. You put a rule, that the risk is higher for the attacker, and lower or none for the defender. So why any idiot will attack? Probably there will be some delusional RP PvPers or very bored players. But in general all rational players will not attack, so there will not be OW PvP.
We are talking about games. In the real life you will be punished if you attack another person. That is how the society guarantees the social order. The violence is not part of that order. If it was, it would not be punished.
But the games are closed systems. In the games if you allow the PK it is part of the game. So if you punish the players for PK, why you allowed it?
The death to kill ratio for attacker is absurdly high. So what exactly are attacker risking?
Most of the attacker only attack if they know they going to win. Else they put their character in safe area or won't even login. Since no one like losing something. Even attacker.
And like I said before, your mentality precisely show why these type of game fail. Even ganker don't want to loss things. Most of the ganker in these game pick on newbie and crafter with no chance of fighting back.
You are quoting metrics without citing any examples.
For what games is the K:D ratio for the attacker absurdly high (link to source please)? What would a reasonable ratio be?
A lot depends on game mechanics. There are plenty of reasons an attacker might initiate without guaranteed victory. Again, risk.
Most games I have played the attacker usually has the advantage. You are attacking when they are alone and you in a group. Attack while they are distracted or injured. You use openers that give you an advantage. If the game isn't PVP the character may not be designed to fight in PVP.
Come on as someone who has done PVP for a while I would say yes attacks have advantages in general.
So, basically, if you use Sun Tzu's Art of War you have an advantage. Tides can easily turn, though.
There may also be reasons you don't do that; for example if you do not wish to escalate a conflict you may engage with minimal force. Sometimes rival groups will "pair off" even when one side outnumbers in order to set tacit rules of engagement.
Attackers usually win because they are fighting people who don't pvp at all. Newbies, miners, pvers. Many who don't even want to pvp at all.
If both side actually want to fight. The fight would be consensual. People would be just pvping. And I won't call one side attackers.
In a open world PvP game there is not always a clear delineation between "pvers" and "pvpers"; it's not really meaningful to talk about those who never PvP because the game has PvP in it.
Some may avoid it, but it's still there; it's not as if there is a box to check.
I disagree that attackers usually fight those who don't want to; sometimes that happens but often it's two armed forces duking it out for supremacy or over valuable loot. There are myriad reasons to fight.
But you are talking about something irrelevant. Because if two side is fighting that is consensual pvping.
I'm talking about weather gankers should have harsher penalty. That means for example red in UO. If you are an outlaw you obviously are fighting those who don't want to. Because that is how you become an outlaw.
I'm specifically talking about games where there is an alignment feature where you have peaceful(who never initiate attack on other peaceful player before), and outlaw(people who have attacked peaceful player before).
I presume you are talking about games like Albion where people fight over resource?
Risk is a punishment. How do you give players risk without losing something? Risk comes from a punishment for gameplay decisions or lack there of.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Risk is not a punishment, it is a source of challenge and fun. Without the risk the games are pointless, as there will not be progression and illusion of accomplishment. To lose in a game is not a punishment.
Why attacking of craftsman is easy? Why the attackers are right back? This is total nonsense. You take some games and use them as universal example. And no. The risk in the case you point is not equal. You put a rule, that the risk is higher for the attacker, and lower or none for the defender. So why any idiot will attack? Probably there will be some delusional RP PvPers or very bored players. But in general all rational players will not attack, so there will not be OW PvP.
We are talking about games. In the real life you will be punished if you attack another person. That is how the society guarantees the social order. The violence is not part of that order. If it was, it would not be punished.
But the games are closed systems. In the games if you allow the PK it is part of the game. So if you punish the players for PK, why you allowed it?
Government is always about violence. You are kept in line and follow the law or you are killed or imprisoned. You don't pay taxes and men with guns come and take it or you.
Every game I have played that allows you to kill other players has players kill other players. I have literally seen friends as kids have fist fights escalated from fighting in Battle Toads. That certainly isn't a PVP game but it allowed it. Fights happened just from someone being an ass.
If you have no rules of engagement the minority will force the majority into an engagement. It always has happened unless there are rules to stop or deter.
Risk comes from a form of punishment for player behavior or there is no risk. If nothing happens for me to for not making a jump there is no risk. If i died and lose my stuff in a canyon forever that is a risk. The risk is enforced by punishment. Again, if you aren't punished for failing at a risky activity there is no risk.
So the government of Switzerland or Luxembourg is about violence? Like when we talk about the games you take some particular case and use it like an universal example. Approach which is simply wrong.
You start with the presumption of singleplayer RPG, and then debate what if they add some MMO elements or even OW. Well, it will not work well or it will not work at all.
PK is not risky activity. It becomes such if it is punished. But again, if the game is well made, it will not happen, or will be so rare, that will not matter.
Please try to think abstract, about the games in general, instead about a particular game. Can you?
Yes, all governments operate with the threat of violence or imprisonment. There is no government that maintains order I can openly kill people and not be killed or locked up.
No you just have an unusual view that all MMORPG must be multiplayer all times. It simply is not required.
I think you are the one who is ridged on view. MMORPG means different things go different people. Sandbox and interdependent community is more important to me than requiring grouped combat. MMORPG to me should be about the virtual world. In the real world I am not forced to group to go to the grocery store. I don't want go require people to group up to visit a crafting store on the other side of town.
No, that is how the societies operate. You can kill people even without a government and you can be punished, it is called lynching. The role of the government even in totalitarian states is to reduce the violence.
And yes, the MMOs should be multiplayer. That does not mean you cannot play solo, that means the game is focused on the competition and cooperation between the players. Sandbox is open world, so I doubt we are talking about the same thing.
Let take your example with the store. If you have simply a VR simulation, all the players will have free access to the grocery and there will be - no competition, no cooperation, in fact - no game.
If it is a solo RPG or the thing most people here call MMORPG, you will go to the grocery store, were you will take generic quests and rewards, the same for all the players, like - collect 20 tomatoes and 5 chocolates, and get 1000 dollars, new achievement, the title - Great collector, and barcode checker item.
If it is a MMO - the number of products in the grocery store will be limited, so you have to overcome the other players to get what you need, so to be better, or to cooperate with some of them to take competitive advantage. It is your choice.
And again - try to think abstract, because if you do not, we cannot talk about the games, we always will debate a certain already played game stuck into what is made, repeating old things.
I think you are the one who needs to think abstract. You talk from an absolute point of view that what you feel is right and everything else is something else. Your view is largely your own as I never heard anyone with you view of MMORPG in 23 years of playing. Maybe you need some perspective if you are going to argue.
I view forcing other players to interact when you shouldn't need to to be unrealistic. I don't want to be forced to group to take down regular wolf or forced to PVP as soon as step into the world/outside of town. If I am raiding a dungeon, fortress, taking down outlandish creature yes I should group. If I am in a clan at war or in a lawless town yeah I should watch my back. I shouldn't have to watch out for psychos killing me while I am picking berries outside of a starter city.
I think you are the one who needs to think abstract. You talk from an absolute point of view that what you feel is right and everything else is something else. Your view is largely your own as I never heard anyone with you view of MMORPG in 23 years of playing. Maybe you need some perspective if you are going to argue.
I view forcing other players to interact when you shouldn't need to to be unrealistic. I don't want to be forced to group to take down regular wolf or forced to PVP as soon as step into the world/outside of town. If I am raiding a dungeon, fortress, taking down outlandish creature yes I should group. If I am in a clan at war or in a lawless town yeah I should watch my back. I shouldn't have to watch out for psychos killing me while I am picking berries outside of a starter city.
Now because you have no arguments, you argue my point of view in general. I said you are wrong, not because you are wrong about a certain game, quite the opposite. You take a certain game and use it like an universal example, which is wrong approach. You cannot start debate from WoW or EQ about the issues of the OW games. And this is obvious.
You are still talking about a certain game. What if the game has no dungeons? What if it has no fortresses? What if it has no towns? Are these things necessary for a MMORPG? I do not think so. And to call any other player psycho, because he PK in a game where the PK is allowed, is very ignorant and rude at least. You admit you played games 23 years, but it seems to me you still know nothing about the games in general.
There is no right or wrong. That is why you can't see a valid argument because you take your opinion as fact. I am coming from the prospective what has been done, can be done, what others want and what I want. You are saying my opinion is right because it's what I believe.
I have mentioned no game. I am talking in general of what can be done in MMORPG. You again are talking absolute of some MMORPG you have in you head being the only path to true multiplayer.
My view is that MMORPG should have a large scale view of interactions. Not just forced grouping in combat or some petty interaction they don't want. That view allows for individualism in a system of interdependency. My personal view but not the only one.
To clarify, I am not calling the player psycho. Just his role of killing random people which it would certainly fall under in real life.
Please name the game I am talking about. You can't becaue I am talking about MMORPG principles not a game.
Yes, I gave examples of my expectations. If the examples are specific ot not is irrelevant. It's an example not specifics.
I can assure you I likely know more about the genre than most people. I have discussed these very issues with people who have developed MMORPG. I will believe them over you who has never. You hold on to a strict manifesto of what you believe. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean lack of knowledge. You will never have an honest debate just going back forth about how you are right.
There is no right or wrong. That is why you can't see a valid argument because you take your opinion as fact. I am coming from the prospective what has been done, can be done, what others want and what I want. You are saying my opinion is right because it's what I believe.
I have mentioned no game. I am talking in general of what can be done in MMORPG. You again are talking absolute of some MMORPG you have in you head being the only path to true multiplayer.
My view is that MMORPG should have a large scale view of interactions. Not just forced grouping in combat or some petty interaction they don't want. That view allows for individualism in a system of interdependency. My personal view but not the only one.
To clarify, I am not calling the player psycho. Just his role of killing random people which it would certainly fall under in real life.
Please name the game I am talking about. You can't becaue I am talking about MMORPG principles not a game.
Yes, I gave examples of my expectations. If the examples are specific ot not is irrelevant. It's an example not specifics.
I can assure you I likely know more about the genre than most people. I have discussed these very issues with people who have developed MMORPG. I will believe them over you who has never. You hold on to a strict manifesto of what you believe. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean lack of knowledge. You will never have an honest debate just going back forth about how you are right.
No, your approach is wrong. You cannot start debate about OW PvP with examples from themepark games. You could be right about a certain game. But at the same time you could be terribly wrong about the games in general. So you must think abstract if you want any kind of debate. You can start from the general case and see how it works in a certain situation. But to generalize a certain game is simply wrong.
Please name the game I am talking about. You can't becaue I am talking about MMORPG principles not a game.
See, that is what I'm talking about. I do not mean a certain game. I'm talking about the OW games in general. Again - OW games, not any MMORPG.
As to debate full loot or FFA PvP in a themepark game seems pointless to me, it is obvious that such a combination will not work.
Again what you have decided is open world is not the generally accepted one. It is your own manifesto. The debate will always me being talking about something else because you only accept you view of open world.
We are talking about video games but we are talking about roles. If you are playing an online RPG to kill random players you are playing a psycho. Just like if I play NBA game as big man I play the role of center or power forward. Again not a hard concept.
You are talking about your own view of open world. I am talking about open world as well. You just have different unwavering views of MMORPG. Certainly not talking about FFA loot in a themepark.
I am talking about the reason why FFA looting is bad and should be avoid in MMORPG as long as their is no accountability. This is my opinion just like you can think FFA killing should be done. I had the view as well at one point.
There's a small niche of people who only play this type of game and a few of them with deep, deep pockets.
The idea is that there is a market for PVP which is true. The problem is many refuse to accept that MMORPG players do not want FFA open world PVP that has no accountability.
The type of gamers who play want to do other things inside a MMORPG besides random killing. There will always be players who just kill other players randomly because they can. They will prevent others who want to do PVE, crafting or organized war from playing how they want.
One of the other problems is that they do not make good games which won't do well regardless of the game type. Mainstream developer with experience and money wouldn't touch this kind of game when they were making MMORPG. So you have amatuers making MMORPG and that just hasn't translated into a high quality experience.
I think you are the one who needs to think abstract. You talk from an absolute point of view that what you feel is right and everything else is something else. Your view is largely your own as I never heard anyone with you view of MMORPG in 23 years of playing. Maybe you need some perspective if you are going to argue.
I view forcing other players to interact when you shouldn't need to to be unrealistic. I don't want to be forced to group to take down regular wolf or forced to PVP as soon as step into the world/outside of town. If I am raiding a dungeon, fortress, taking down outlandish creature yes I should group. If I am in a clan at war or in a lawless town yeah I should watch my back. I shouldn't have to watch out for psychos killing me while I am picking berries outside of a starter city.
Now because you have no arguments, you argue my point of view in general. I said you are wrong, not because you are wrong about a certain game, quite the opposite. You take a certain game and use it like an universal example, which is wrong approach. You cannot start debate from WoW or EQ about the issues of the OW games. And this is obvious.
You are still talking about a certain game. What if the game has no dungeons? What if it has no fortresses? What if it has no towns? Are these things necessary for a MMORPG? I do not think so. And to call any other player psycho, because he PK in a game where the PK is allowed, is very ignorant and rude at least. You admit you played games 23 years, but it seems to me you still know nothing about the games in general.
You are wrong because you make no sense, you are trying to have a discussion based on your very strict terms of what is and what isn't when a general concurrence has been made on all of these topics. It seems in your mind you are "challenging" the status quo when in reality you are just making strawman arguments based on bullshit. You aren't new or innovative, you are ignorant. Not an insult, just a fact.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Again what you have decided is open world is not the generally accepted one. It is your own manifesto. The debate will always me being talking about something else because you only accept you view of open world.
We are talking about video games but we are talking about roles. If you are playing an online RPG to kill random players you are playing a psycho. Just like if I play NBA game as big man I play the role of center or power forward. Again not a hard concept.
You are talking about your own view of open world. I am talking about open world as well. You just have different unwavering views of MMORPG. Certainly not talking about FFA loot in a themepark.
I am talking about the reason why FFA looting is bad and should be avoid in MMORPG as long as their is no accountability. This is my opinion just like you can think FFA killing should be done. I had the view as well at one point.
RPG does not mean roles that players choose, but the roles that game provides. There are games where you can play the role of a psychopath. But most MMOs are not such. So that role is only in your imagination.
OW is sandbox, that is how it works. A world open for changes. Or if you disagree, well you know what I mean, so I do not see why you use examples from instanced games to prove OW does not work. This is ridiculous.
FFA looting is not bad. It could be in a certain game, where it is in conflict with other rules, features and goals implemented. That is actually what we should debate - when FFA PvP works, when it does not, and why. Instead you say - it is bad, period, and prove that with generalized examples from the games you have played. Then you want me to agree. Buy I do not. As your examples just prove that OW PvP does not work in certain circumstances. And that is not the same as if it does not work in general.
Again - we need abstract thinking here to make any progress.
Vermillion_Raventhal said: "I am talking about the reason why FFA looting is bad and should be avoid in MMORPG as long as their is no accountability."
ikcin said: "Instead you say - it is bad, period,..."
There's a small niche of people who only play this type of game and a few of them with deep, deep pockets.
The one I play isn't pay-to-win. If it were, I doubt I would have stuck around.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
I doubt you'll change his mind in any way. A person who doesn't accept that other characters in a MMO are controlled by human beings with human feelings is a lost cause.
And nobody really cares... all the games that could eventually cater to such people miserably fail, and for a good reason.
I completely agree, Jean-Luc. But I'd like to see all that change by adding the needed consequences for "crimes" such as murder, and to the lesser degree for theft. We could have a much more detailed world, with a wider scope that brings with it roleplay and adventure. A complete game world to play in.
Again what you have decided is open world is not the generally accepted one. It is your own manifesto. The debate will always me being talking about something else because you only accept you view of open world.
We are talking about video games but we are talking about roles. If you are playing an online RPG to kill random players you are playing a psycho. Just like if I play NBA game as big man I play the role of center or power forward. Again not a hard concept.
You are talking about your own view of open world. I am talking about open world as well. You just have different unwavering views of MMORPG. Certainly not talking about FFA loot in a themepark.
I am talking about the reason why FFA looting is bad and should be avoid in MMORPG as long as their is no accountability. This is my opinion just like you can think FFA killing should be done. I had the view as well at one point.
RPG does not mean roles that players choose, but the roles that game provides. There are games where you can play the role of a psychopath. But most MMOs are not such. So that role is only in your imagination.
OW is sandbox, that is how it works. A world open for changes. Or if you disagree, well you know what I mean, so I do not see why you use examples from instanced games to prove OW does not work. This is ridiculous.
FFA looting is not bad. It could be in a certain game, where it is in conflict with other rules, features and goals implemented. That is actually what we should debate - when FFA PvP works, when it does not, and why. Instead you say - it is bad, period, and prove that with generalized examples from the games you have played. Then you want me to agree. Buy I do not. As your examples just prove that OW PvP does not work in certain circumstances. And that is not the same as if it does not work in general.
Again - we need abstract thinking here to make any progress.
Vermillion_Raventhal said: "I am talking about the reason why FFA looting is bad and should be avoid in MMORPG as long as their is no accountability."
ikcin said: "Instead you say - it is bad, period,..."
I think I see the problem here.
Crazy thing is that I am for FFA PVP. I just believe if you are going to play an outlaw/psycho you should be hunted by NPC bounty hunters. You should be imprisoned, executed and banished somewhere far if caught. Seems fair to me.
Again what you have decided is open world is not the generally accepted one. It is your own manifesto. The debate will always me being talking about something else because you only accept you view of open world.
We are talking about video games but we are talking about roles. If you are playing an online RPG to kill random players you are playing a psycho. Just like if I play NBA game as big man I play the role of center or power forward. Again not a hard concept.
You are talking about your own view of open world. I am talking about open world as well. You just have different unwavering views of MMORPG. Certainly not talking about FFA loot in a themepark.
I am talking about the reason why FFA looting is bad and should be avoid in MMORPG as long as their is no accountability. This is my opinion just like you can think FFA killing should be done. I had the view as well at one point.
RPG does not mean roles that players choose, but the roles that game provides. There are games where you can play the role of a psychopath. But most MMOs are not such. So that role is only in your imagination.
OW is sandbox, that is how it works. A world open for changes. Or if you disagree, well you know what I mean, so I do not see why you use examples from instanced games to prove OW does not work. This is ridiculous.
FFA looting is not bad. It could be in a certain game, where it is in conflict with other rules, features and goals implemented. That is actually what we should debate - when FFA PvP works, when it does not, and why. Instead you say - it is bad, period, and prove that with generalized examples from the games you have played. Then you want me to agree. Buy I do not. As your examples just prove that OW PvP does not work in certain circumstances. And that is not the same as if it does not work in general.
Again - we need abstract thinking here to make any progress.
Vermillion_Raventhal said: "I am talking about the reason why FFA looting is bad and should be avoid in MMORPG as long as their is no accountability."
ikcin said: "Instead you say - it is bad, period,..."
I think I see the problem here.
Crazy thing is that I am for FFA PVP. I just believe if you are going to play an outlaw/psycho you should be hunted by NPC bounty hunters. You should be imprisoned, executed and banished somewhere far if caught. Seems fair to me.
Yes, but as both you and I keep saying, the game needs to be designed for the punishment so that it actually works. That's the key. Funny thing is, by designing the game for this, you actually add to it and make it a better, more complete, game world.
Comments
Your idea that you must do everything together is just silly. Do you use your inventory together? Do want to force crafting together? Do you want to force players to share property and gear? There is room for individualism in MMORPG without ruining the interdependency. Combat is no exception. Just like in real life I don't have to share everything.
Developers always punish players. If I am a bad player who dies on platforming the game rules punishment. I get better or die. If being reckless in combat gets me killed. The game punishes me. Just like if you kill random players outside of the developers desired scope the game punishes you. There are no separate rules we all play under them. It's just your choices.
Without the rules the attacker generally has the advantage and gets rewards for little risk. Even if the defender wins the attacker is right back having risked little. I have been the attacker. I know to minimize loss and maximize rewards. I know when to attack. I know using numbers is easier. I know attacking a craftsman is easy.
There are no special rules. There are shared consequences to actions. There are no specific players who are punished. All players have the same risk for the same actions.
Every game I have played that allows you to kill other players has players kill other players. I have literally seen friends as kids have fist fights escalated from fighting in Battle Toads. That certainly isn't a PVP game but it allowed it. Fights happened just from someone being an ass.
If you have no rules of engagement the minority will force the majority into an engagement. It always has happened unless there are rules to stop or deter.
Risk comes from a form of punishment for player behavior or there is no risk. If nothing happens for me to for not making a jump there is no risk. If i died and lose my stuff in a canyon forever that is a risk. The risk is enforced by punishment. Again, if you aren't punished for failing at a risky activity there is no risk.
No you just have an unusual view that all MMORPG must be multiplayer all times. It simply is not required.
I think you are the one who is ridged on view. MMORPG means different things go different people. Sandbox and interdependent community is more important to me than requiring grouped combat. MMORPG to me should be about the virtual world. In the real world I am not forced to group to go to the grocery store. I don't want go require people to group up to visit a crafting store on the other side of town.
For example; same thing when they make sequels to old movies like Predator for example, you know that the movie will probably suck, but i dont have to watch them if they do, so just keep making them i dont need to pay attention to them if they suck, but the more they keep making them the bigger chance there is that one game/movie gets it right.
Most of the attacker only attack if they know they going to win. Else they put their character in safe area or won't even login. Since no one like losing something. Even attacker.
And like I said before, your mentality precisely show why these type of game fail. Even ganker don't want to loss things. Most of the ganker in these game pick on newbie and crafter with no chance of fighting back.
For what games is the K:D ratio for the attacker absurdly high (link to source please)? What would a reasonable ratio be?
A lot depends on game mechanics. There are plenty of reasons an attacker might initiate without guaranteed victory. Again, risk.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Come on as someone who has done PVP for a while I would say yes attacks have advantages in general.
There may also be reasons you don't do that; for example if you do not wish to escalate a conflict you may engage with minimal force. Sometimes rival groups will "pair off" even when one side outnumbers in order to set tacit rules of engagement.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
The mechanics of cleaning PK's was easy but the practice was much harder since anyone could (and would on my server) attack you.
L2 is the closest I have seen thus far to OWPVP done correctly.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Attackers usually win because they are fighting people who don't pvp at all. Newbies, miners, pvers. Many who don't even want to pvp at all.
If both side actually want to fight. The fight would be consensual. People would be just pvping. And I won't call one side attackers.
Some may avoid it, but it's still there; it's not as if there is a box to check.
I disagree that attackers usually fight those who don't want to; sometimes that happens but often it's two armed forces duking it out for supremacy or over valuable loot. There are myriad reasons to fight.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
I'm talking about weather gankers should have harsher penalty. That means for example red in UO. If you are an outlaw you obviously are fighting those who don't want to. Because that is how you become an outlaw.
I'm specifically talking about games where there is an alignment feature where you have peaceful(who never initiate attack on other peaceful player before), and outlaw(people who have attacked peaceful player before).
I presume you are talking about games like Albion where people fight over resource?
I view forcing other players to interact when you shouldn't need to to be unrealistic. I don't want to be forced to group to take down regular wolf or forced to PVP as soon as step into the world/outside of town. If I am raiding a dungeon, fortress, taking down outlandish creature yes I should group. If I am in a clan at war or in a lawless town yeah I should watch my back. I shouldn't have to watch out for psychos killing me while I am picking berries outside of a starter city.
I have mentioned no game. I am talking in general of what can be done in MMORPG. You again are talking absolute of some MMORPG you have in you head being the only path to true multiplayer.
My view is that MMORPG should have a large scale view of interactions. Not just forced grouping in combat or some petty interaction they don't want. That view allows for individualism in a system of interdependency. My personal view but not the only one.
To clarify, I am not calling the player psycho. Just his role of killing random people which it would certainly fall under in real life.
Please name the game I am talking about. You can't becaue I am talking about MMORPG principles not a game.
Yes, I gave examples of my expectations. If the examples are specific ot not is irrelevant. It's an example not specifics.
I can assure you I likely know more about the genre than most people. I have discussed these very issues with people who have developed MMORPG. I will believe them over you who has never. You hold on to a strict manifesto of what you believe. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean lack of knowledge. You will never have an honest debate just going back forth about how you are right.
We are talking about video games but we are talking about roles. If you are playing an online RPG to kill random players you are playing a psycho. Just like if I play NBA game as big man I play the role of center or power forward. Again not a hard concept.
You are talking about your own view of open world. I am talking about open world as well. You just have different unwavering views of MMORPG. Certainly not talking about FFA loot in a themepark.
I am talking about the reason why FFA looting is bad and should be avoid in MMORPG as long as their is no accountability. This is my opinion just like you can think FFA killing should be done. I had the view as well at one point.
The type of gamers who play want to do other things inside a MMORPG besides random killing. There will always be players who just kill other players randomly because they can. They will prevent others who want to do PVE, crafting or organized war from playing how they want.
One of the other problems is that they do not make good games which won't do well regardless of the game type. Mainstream developer with experience and money wouldn't touch this kind of game when they were making MMORPG. So you have amatuers making MMORPG and that just hasn't translated into a high quality experience.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
ikcin said: "Instead you say - it is bad, period,..."
I think I see the problem here.
Once upon a time....
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
But I'd like to see all that change by adding the needed consequences for "crimes" such as murder, and to the lesser degree for theft.
We could have a much more detailed world, with a wider scope that brings with it roleplay and adventure. A complete game world to play in.
Once upon a time....
Funny thing is, by designing the game for this, you actually add to it and make it a better, more complete, game world.
Once upon a time....