I don't gank, but it doesn't bother me when others do. It is after all part of the universe you play in, if you were really at war in a brutal unforgiving world, you wouldn't let an enemy live because they were puny, you'd nuke them anyway.
It makes no sense to me for players to complain about getting beaten up by bigger, stronger characters, they have had the same time etc. to get good, they just haven't done so (coming to a game 3 years late can have this effect).
If you don't like the consequences of PvP just don't play games that focus on it. Go for something more PvE, or go for WoW and don't go on the PvP servers... simples really.
Then you feel bad for about 80-90% of MMO gamers. The days of an understanding of "If I lose, I must learn from it and try harder next time" are gone. It has been replaced by "If I lose, then the other guy cheated, or the game is unbalanced, or it was a bug."
WOW raids fail all the time to defeat the bosses they're trying to kill.
Casual players fail all the time to defeat the casual content they attempt (the type of stuff the raiding players never die at.)
Players aren't chasing after games where they fail all the time, but they quickly tired of games where they win all the time.
So your statement just seems outright wrong.
I don't think it's so much my statement being wrong as it is your perspective being way out of whack. In both examples you give the parts I wrote in quotes still ring true with respect in particular to the latter quote. One only has to look at global chat or on forums for the evidence. And you might want to tone down the extremist remarks, or at least do so if you're trying to intimate a sentiment from something I wrote. I said nothing about chasing a game where you fail all the time. More appropriate to what I wrote would be that I am saying games where you fail a significant amount of the time are gone. Whether it be at raids or in just normal PvE.
Games aren't built or scaled with any measure of inherent danger when you leave so-called civilized areas anymore. Everything is numbered and ordered so that the player can't fail unless they are incompetent or maybe once of twice if they are a complete newbie to MMOs. You may like that (or not), but I personally don't.
But you have your opinion and I have mine. From reading a few of yours in the past (yes, I remember many of the forum handles and the views expressed so no I'm not stalking you) we don't agree on much. Which is perfectly ok.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Is it possible that there may be a case or two where people 'gank' because that is the inherent nature of any kind of strategic combat or conquest based game? I'm just thinking that there are certain games where the use of the term 'gank' simply indicates a lack of understanding of the difference between a sport PVP event (arena, battlegrounds and most other instanced combat) and conquest/strategy-based combat (territory control, keep/marker capture or city construction/defense games as some examples). It's easy to write it off as 'psychopathic behavior' and create some persona of an evil kid that hurt small animals and was picked on in school, but it's entirely possible that in some situations or even in some common areas of gameplay, the 'ganked' person was someone that basically didn't understand the mechanics or design of the game. I'm not saying that's all game sor all cases, and I know I will get flamed for even suggesting it, but I still wanted to put that possibility out there.
Well the strategic and tactical players aren't playing games with ganking/open PVP for the most part. The ones who want competitive PVP play GW, WOW, or (more likely) an entirely different genre where non-skill factors are minimized and truly competitive play emerges.
A player interested in strategy and tactics wouldn't be all that interested in a game where the vastly majority of conflict is one-sided.
We who play EVE would disagree with you. If you find yourself in a fair fight, either you or your opponent is doing something wrong.
When all the marbles are on the table, there can be only one reasonable outcome, winning overwhelmingly. When there's nothing at stake as in the games you referred to then "fair" combat can be considered reasonable.
You response makes no sense at all. He is talking about strategy and you are talking about loss.
Kyleran you are saying that in EVE people do not want fair fights because the cost is to high. That basically means that strategy is all but void. That means that EVE is a straight resource development game. Inherently, what you are stating is that people who play EVE try and gather as much power as possible and pick on people who have less power.
I am sorry but that sounds like a game filled with bullies who are afraid to test skill in an equal game like chess. I prefer chess. I feel bad for people who only play games they are assured to win. Playing basketball against small children has to get boring after awhile.
Then you feel bad for about 80-90% of MMO gamers. The days of an understanding of "If I lose, I must learn from it and try harder next time" are gone. It has been replaced by "If I lose, then the other guy cheated, or the game is unbalanced, or it was a bug." This started a while back with every child in any kind of league/sport getting a trophy for "participation" so they would feel good about themselves. Those kids are now young adults and the "target audience" for MMOs. Sure, there are a few older than them who believe the same (my thought is those are the ones who always lost at competitions when younger) but on the whole, as a world, the feeling of entitlement to victory with no possible loss has grown. In gaming and in society.
MMO companies are businesses first and foremost and will try to attract the most flies. So they have, of late, almost universally adopted the "path of least resistance" philosophy in game design sum total.
I always new if I made stupid decisions and didn't think things through that I had a Dungeon Master that would kill my character and I'd have to roll/role a new one. It made my enjoyment of playing D&D that much more memorable. The vast majority of gamers, and more importantly developers these days, have no idea what that feeling is like and if you try to explain to them they immediately get turned off when they realize you can lose everything.
So... here we are. Easy mode 2.0. I'm not saying, btw, that players should lose their characters upon death, as I know some idiot will try to construe what I wrote into that. There is, however, a marked difference in the overall difficulty level of first Gen MMOs and post 2004 ones.
I am not sure if people have changed all that much in the last 15 years. I am also not sure it is because many new players never played pen and paper games. I am always hesitant to make broad sweeping generalizations about a group of people; I have found little good can come from it.
SWG was my first MMO so I am a bit limited in knowledge when it comes to some of older MMOs.
Inherently though what you are saying is the exact reason why death penalty and looting people in PVP can be a very bad thing. If people lose a bunch when they lose a fight they will only fight when they are assured they can win. The game becomes about risk/reward calculations and not about playing the game to have fun.
It does seem very hard to balance though. How does a game balance risk/reward with compelling game play? I have no clue.
Nothing wrong with a difference of opinion. I would be interested to see the results of a questionaire of sorts that asked 10 older (30+) gamers who had played Advanced D&D 2nd ed. and 10 younger (25 and under) players who hadn't but had played other video games how they feel about a death penalty like that of Asheron's Call for example. I have a biased belief that the younger crowd would most probably react in a "why do I have to be penalized!!" fashion that the older gamers.
But yeah, I agree, nothing is 100% when it comes to statements like these and there are always exceptions (I guess that would be 100%, no? :P )
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
I don't hate the player that kills me in a PvP environment when it's based that way. I hate the play that kills me and then griefs me to ruin my experience for cheap thrills. I honestly say that if a game is PvP based and you happen to come across someone and kill them, don't be a douche and stick around to kill them repeatedly. At least in darkfall if they take what little I was carrying I wont be carrying much outside of a weapon when i return so it's not like they gain anything by repeatedly killing me.
"If at first you don't succeed, excessive force is probably the answer."
I wait for the ganker or fight to come to me so that it is more of a challenge. But I think #1 is the best reason, people think they are supposed to on a PvP server.
People gank because they like to win in PvP and in order to do that they must use numbers to their advantage or be of a much higher level and than their victim.
Gankers are just the low-lifes of the internet.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
ganking to me is and always will be psycopathic behaviour. people can spin and rationalize it in any way they please, but thats what it is.
You would be surprised at the amount of people that are "broken" inside.
I have never been interested in killing other peoples avatars in my online games, I prefer to make friends or simply avoid those who are unfriendly.
I'd pay to see you two play RISK or Axis and Allies against each other,
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
ganking to me is and always will be psycopathic behaviour. people can spin and rationalize it in any way they please, but thats what it is.
/agree
Ganking is like "happy slapping" in real life and then post your cellphone footage on youtube >:(
PvP should have a meaningful reason (siege for control of a castle or fortress, or resource control). If PvP is just lame and empty "If it moves and not one of us" I'll pass....
In most mainstream games, if someone is attackable (red) then they are likely the enemy in the context of the game. So why wouldn't you kill the enemy in any way possible?
In FFA games, very few people kill everyone they see. Mostly because they don't know who they're messing with, what skills he may have, if his guild will come to his aid, etc.
Which is the irony when it comes to those who whine about pvp and FFA games. FFA skill based games = less ganking and more caution. Faction theme park games = more ganking due to no consequences.
Playing a game where you know you can be killed and then whining about it when it happens is pathetic.
In MMOs killing is killing. What is the difference between killing 800 Hillmen NPCs for a trait in LOTRO or a player killing another players Avatar in a PVP based game ? Or a player dieing in combat to another player or to an NPC ?
Then you feel bad for about 80-90% of MMO gamers. The days of an understanding of "If I lose, I must learn from it and try harder next time" are gone. It has been replaced by "If I lose, then the other guy cheated, or the game is unbalanced, or it was a bug."
WOW raids fail all the time to defeat the bosses they're trying to kill.
Casual players fail all the time to defeat the casual content they attempt (the type of stuff the raiding players never die at.)
Players aren't chasing after games where they fail all the time, but they quickly tired of games where they win all the time.
So your statement just seems outright wrong.
I don't think it's so much my statement being wrong as it is your perspective being way out of whack. In both examples you give the parts I wrote in quotes still ring true with respect in particular to the latter quote. One only has to look at global chat or on forums for the evidence. And you might want to tone down the extremist remarks, or at least do so if you're trying to intimate a sentiment from something I wrote. I said nothing about chasing a game where you fail all the time. More appropriate to what I wrote would be that I am saying games where you fail a significant amount of the time are gone. Whether it be at raids or in just normal PvE.
Games aren't built or scaled with any measure of inherent danger when you leave so-called civilized areas anymore. Everything is numbered and ordered so that the player can't fail unless they are incompetent or maybe once of twice if they are a complete newbie to MMOs. You may like that (or not), but I personally don't.
But you have your opinion and I have mine. From reading a few of yours in the past (yes, I remember many of the forum handles and the views expressed so no I'm not stalking you) we don't agree on much. Which is perfectly ok.
Sorry, I suppose it's ironic (and disappointing of myself) to have made an extremist remark in a post whose intent was to point out your extremist remark (that most players weren't seeking challenge,) because they are. The entire point of games is to hit a "challenge sweet spot". Too easy and the game is tic-tac-toe: easily "solved" and discarded. Too hard and the game beats the player up and chases them away.
"Failing a significant amount of time" describes that sweet spot, but fails on account of it being from a solitary viewpoint (likely that of a veteran MMORPG gamer.) The sweet spot of casual MMORPG gamers is different from that of veterans, hence the most successful MMORPGs are the ones that min/max the situation and offer a lot of casual-friendly content (to their majority audience) along with some veteran-friendly content (for the smaller audience of vets.)
It's fair to criticize this only if you're suggesting that at every point in gameplay there are difficulty options provided to players to let them opt into challenging gameplay. If all you're saying is "I want my leveling to have a difficulty slider so that 80% of the game's content isn't way too easy, as a result of a game having to appeal to casuals" then I'd completely agree.
But the point of this post and my last is more to dispute the idea that 80-90% of gamers aren't seeking challenge (and claim cheating/imbalance when they find challenge) because that's simply not true. They're not seeking a game which frequently beats them down, but one where that sweet spot of challenge is attained.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Regardless of WHY people "gank" or go out to pick fights with no risk to themselves, my experience of FFA pvp has been pretty much a waste of time, max level people hanging around low level zones hunting newbies to one shot. I'm not moaning about it, but I have ruled out playing any other FFA pvp game as this isn't the kind of gameplay that interests me, I personally would gain no enjoyment from acting in such a manner after enduring hours of ganking before I can return the favour and kill other people in low level zones and making their route to max level as painful as possible. Altering it from a level based to a skill based system doesn't really alter this, people with a low skill level will be just as helpless as those of a low level.
Perhaps FFA pvp games don't need to be this way but it's my opinion that this is the mentality of enough FFA pvp gamers for me to avoid such titles. Overall the adding of a FFA element to a game makes me think, this game will be more of a pain in the ass to play than fun.
FFA pvp does serve a niche market, I guess I'm not part of that market as the cons outweigh the pro's for me personally. Perhaps if the FFA community behaved a bit "better" towards new players that niche would be a little larger. Low levels of interest in FFA pvp games are pretty much down to peoples preconceptions that enough of the community will be out to make their time in the game as miserable as possible. Making the process of a player trying out a new genre of FFA pvp as painful as possible will make the vast majority of players realise that is is the worst of their fears and not worth considering further. The argument "We all had to deal with it, so just put up with it and accept the pain, trust us in a few months of this crap the game does improve" certainly isn't the best way to get people into your style of MMO.
Looking at someones analogy of Risk or A&A, would I enjoy joining a game partway through with 5 armies where the other players had 200 and went out of their way to take me on? Would I keep rejoining such a game after every time I was eradicated in the hope of surviving to the point where it became fun? I'd simply look for something else that welcomed a new player rather than drove them away.
Its really simple. People gank, because they are boring.
Exciting people don't gank. Its boring, tedious, and did I say boring?
I'm assuming by ganking we are talking about someone who has no business in a particular area(other than ganking) who is going around terrorizing the people.
In MMOs killing is killing. What is the difference between killing 800 Hillmen NPCs for a trait in LOTRO or a player killing another players Avatar in a PVP based game ? Or a player dieing in combat to another player or to an NPC ?
What's all the fuss ?
No one is killing low lvl NPCs who give no experience or loot. Loads of people love to kill low level players who give no exp or loot.
Ganking isn't PvP. PvP involves risk. Ganking is done, because the person can't handle content their own level.
In MMOs killing is killing. What is the difference between killing 800 Hillmen NPCs for a trait in LOTRO or a player killing another players Avatar in a PVP based game ? Or a player dieing in combat to another player or to an NPC ?
What's all the fuss ?
No one is killing low lvl NPCs who give no experience or loot. Loads of people love to kill low level players who give no exp or loot.
Ganking isn't PvP. PvP involves risk. Ganking is done, because the person can't handle content their own level.
The reason people gank, if you ask me, is to humor that sick and twisted mind set of being a human, we like to make others feel smaller to us, and alot of people were killed by some other player and take it out on a weaker one to get their jollies.
The fact is, people are animals, we enjoy to see things squirm, the urge to gank is in almost every player and only the players who think it through are the "reasonable players". Usually people feel weak in other aspects of their lives so when they play a game that they can make others feel weak they thrive on it, its like when your little and you burn ants with a magnifying glass, its the same basic concept, people think its funny.
Games Waiting for: FF14, Tera Online, Blade and Soul, and Rift
The reason people gank, if you ask me, is to humor that sick and twisted mind set of being a human, we like to make others feel smaller to us, and alot of people were killed by some other player and take it out on a weaker one to get their jollies.
The fact is, people are animals, we enjoy to see things squirm, the urge to gank is in almost every player and only the players who think it through are the "reasonable players". Usually people feel weak in other aspects of their lives so when they play a game that they can make others feel weak they thrive on it, its like when your little and you burn ants with a magnifying glass, its the same basic concept, people think its funny.
Actually animals don't really like to see seems squirm. It is more like because we are human we like to see things squirm.
Cats might play with mice before eventually killing them, but in the natural animal world. Killing is done swift and "merciful" as there are no unnecessary intents to prolong the suffering or fight a losing battle.
When animals hunt for food it is methodical out of necessity, and when they fight for territory they usually do not go so far as to make a kill unless necessary. Young animals fight each other to learn how to survive, but they rarely break skin much less kill their own sibling in the process.
Truthfully, humans are cruel because we are more self aware and developed complex thinking. People think killer instinct is something primal, but truthfully wild animals only possess survival instinct as they usually only act violent when threatened.
The reason people gank, if you ask me, is to humor that sick and twisted mind set of being a human, we like to make others feel smaller to us, and alot of people were killed by some other player and take it out on a weaker one to get their jollies.
The fact is, people are animals, we enjoy to see things squirm, the urge to gank is in almost every player and only the players who think it through are the "reasonable players". Usually people feel weak in other aspects of their lives so when they play a game that they can make others feel weak they thrive on it, its like when your little and you burn ants with a magnifying glass, its the same basic concept, people think its funny.
Actually animals don't really like to see seems squirm. It is more like because we are human we like to see things squirm.
Cats might play with mice before eventually killing them, but in the natural animal world. Killing is done swift and "merciful" as there are no unnecessary intents to prolong the suffering or fight a losing battle.
When animals hunt for food it is methodical out of necessity, and when they fight for territory they usually do not go so far as to make a kill unless necessary. Young animals fight each other to learn how to survive, but they rarely break skin much less kill their own sibling in the process.
Truthfully, humans are cruel because we are more self aware and developed complex thinking. People think killer instinct is something primal, but truthfully wild animals only possess survival instinct as they usually only act violent when threatened.
Really, killer instinct is most defiantly primal, as primal is how everything began, whats the dividing line between being a survivalist and a killer?, reason?, animals don't give excuses they kill out of necessity, same with murderers, whether it be necessity for money, power, or an urge to just see something die(psychopaths). So where do you put your dividing line if thats what you believe?
Tell the three people who died unecessary deaths to that killer whale at the park Im sure they will be concerned that it was the whales "survival instinct", animals kill out of an impulse in their brains the same as humans do, their reason is just more shrouded because their intelligence isn't to what we consider the standard, its just 2 of the same examples put in different worlds, the animal and human ones, its the same thing, just with different words.
Games Waiting for: FF14, Tera Online, Blade and Soul, and Rift
In MMOs killing is killing. What is the difference between killing 800 Hillmen NPCs for a trait in LOTRO or a player killing another players Avatar in a PVP based game ? Or a player dieing in combat to another player or to an NPC ? What's all the fuss ?
Is it confusing that NPCs aren't Humans? NPCs aren't concerned with having fun, nor do they pay subscriptions. NPCs are designed to be ganked.
Without delving into details:
Killing hillmen NPCs doesn't cause them less fun. NPCs don't have fun.
Killing players often causes them less fun. Players pay subscriptions, which keep games alive.
Dying to NPCs is self-initiated. You initiated, it beat you -- it's your fault.
When dying to players isn't self-initiated, being ganked isn't very fun. When dying to players is self-initiated, it becomes more acceptable to die -- hence instanced PVP's popularity.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I guess alot of this really depends on how one defines "ganking"... and the context of the game in which it is occuring.
As a disclaimer....I don't do PvP much in MMORPG's.....as in general I find they don't do PvP very well....about the only exception I've personaly seen is WWII Online (which is more like a persistant FPS). I like PvP, but when I want to experience I go to FPS games like the Battlefield series or to PBEM strategy games....things that are specificaly designed to deliver that kind of experience and do it well.
To me, "ganking" pretty much indicates killing of another player in a situation where they pretty much have ZERO chance to fight back or escape...in a game environment WHERE SUCH THINGS AREN'T EXPECTED as part of the game. Thus it pretty much always has a negative connotation. Now, this isn't everyones definition of "ganking" and some people might engage in what they would refer to as "ganking" .... when the activity is something that I would regard as entirely appropriate given the environment...and thus not anything I would personaly consider "ganking". Note...there are plenty of games where killing another player where they have next to zero chance to respond is part of the expected environment and design. In those sort of games...I, personaly, wouldn't even consider that sort of activity as "ganking".
For instance....in WWII Online....(like in some instances in Battlefield games).... I wouldn't consider killing another player in a situation where they were pretty close to defenseless as "ganking" or even think it were really possible to "gank" anyone...except maybe is some sort of tutorial area. Part of those games is to essentialy put the opposing side in a position where they can't effectively defend a particular position...because you've overwhelmed them with numbers, superior equipment or superior position. A big part of the effective tactics of those sort of games actualy involves killing people when they don't even know where you are...or that there were hostiles in the area.... or are ready and setup for combat.
In essence "Get there firstest with the mostest and don't tell no one you're coming".
I haven't played EVE, myself but it sounds like you guys are talking about the difference between Strategy, Tactics and Logistics.
Strategy = The art of winning conflicts....that includes seeking to define the terms of the conflict ....and the aquisition and build-up of resources to be used in the conflict. Usualy when you talk strategy...you talk on a Grand Scale....meaning it's more about winning wars then fire-fights.
Tactics = The art of deploying, manuvering and utilizing the forces you have localy available to win a particular fight/battle. Usualy when people talk tactics it's pretty small scale...like moving squads or individual soldiers/vehicles....meaning it's more about winning a fire-fight...not a war.
Logistics = The art of organizing & moving supplies, war material and personnel in a theatre of conflict to give your forces an advantage in engaging the enemy.
I believe it's been stated that expert generals study Logistics more then anything else, as they often are the key to winning conflicts. However, it probably takes a very distinct personality to derive huge amounts of enjoyment from figuring out the most efficient way to deliver 5,000 tons of ammo from point A to point B.
Then you feel bad for about 80-90% of MMO gamers. The days of an understanding of "If I lose, I must learn from it and try harder next time" are gone. It has been replaced by "If I lose, then the other guy cheated, or the game is unbalanced, or it was a bug."
WOW raids fail all the time to defeat the bosses they're trying to kill.
Casual players fail all the time to defeat the casual content they attempt (the type of stuff the raiding players never die at.)
Players aren't chasing after games where they fail all the time, but they quickly tired of games where they win all the time.
So your statement just seems outright wrong.
I don't think it's so much my statement being wrong as it is your perspective being way out of whack. In both examples you give the parts I wrote in quotes still ring true with respect in particular to the latter quote. One only has to look at global chat or on forums for the evidence. And you might want to tone down the extremist remarks, or at least do so if you're trying to intimate a sentiment from something I wrote. I said nothing about chasing a game where you fail all the time. More appropriate to what I wrote would be that I am saying games where you fail a significant amount of the time are gone. Whether it be at raids or in just normal PvE.
Games aren't built or scaled with any measure of inherent danger when you leave so-called civilized areas anymore. Everything is numbered and ordered so that the player can't fail unless they are incompetent or maybe once of twice if they are a complete newbie to MMOs. You may like that (or not), but I personally don't.
But you have your opinion and I have mine. From reading a few of yours in the past (yes, I remember many of the forum handles and the views expressed so no I'm not stalking you) we don't agree on much. Which is perfectly ok.
Sorry, I suppose it's ironic (and disappointing of myself) to have made an extremist remark in a post whose intent was to point out your extremist remark (that most players weren't seeking challenge,) because they are. The entire point of games is to hit a "challenge sweet spot". Too easy and the game is tic-tac-toe: easily "solved" and discarded. Too hard and the game beats the player up and chases them away.
"Failing a significant amount of time" describes that sweet spot, but fails on account of it being from a solitary viewpoint (likely that of a veteran MMORPG gamer.) The sweet spot of casual MMORPG gamers is different from that of veterans, hence the most successful MMORPGs are the ones that min/max the situation and offer a lot of casual-friendly content (to their majority audience) along with some veteran-friendly content (for the smaller audience of vets.)
It's fair to criticize this only if you're suggesting that at every point in gameplay there are difficulty options provided to players to let them opt into challenging gameplay. If all you're saying is "I want my leveling to have a difficulty slider so that 80% of the game's content isn't way too easy, as a result of a game having to appeal to casuals" then I'd completely agree.
But the point of this post and my last is more to dispute the idea that 80-90% of gamers aren't seeking challenge (and claim cheating/imbalance when they find challenge) because that's simply not true. They're not seeking a game which frequently beats them down, but one where that sweet spot of challenge is attained.
Then I might suggest that you take your dispute to the game developers and not me as I am not making the games with such thinking in mind: They are. I am only pointing out what I have seen happen over the last 6 years or so and commenting thusly. While I do not think a "slider" would work in practice (sounds ok in theory) and note that DDO has done so in an off way (having 3(4) difficulty levels for its dungeon instances with the player having to complete the easier setting before running it again at a higher one; which by the way is not fun to me as I'm not a fan of running the same content over and over in hopes it is more challenging). STO is talking of a slider as well, which again, isn't enticing to me (as I've literally done every working mission they have in game now) as I'd rather the content just be challenging (and me fail a few times and have to figure out tactics to defeat it other than going in with guns blazing) in the first.
By your reasoning then every viewpoint here, yours included, fails as they are all from a solitary viewpoint, regardless of if they are shared by a great many others.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Then I might suggest that you take your dispute to the game developers and not me as I am not making the games with such thinking in mind: They are. I am only pointing out what I have seen happen over the last 6 years or so and commenting thusly. While I do not think a "slider" would work in practice (sounds ok in theory) and note that DDO has done so in an off way (having 3(4) difficulty levels for its dungeon instances with the player having to complete the easier setting before running it again at a higher one; which by the way is not fun to me as I'm not a fan of running the same content over and over in hopes it is more challenging). STO is talking of a slider as well, which again, isn't enticing to me (as I've literally done every working mission they have in game now) as I'd rather the content just be challenging (and me fail a few times and have to figure out tactics to defeat it other than going in with guns blazing) in the first. By your reasoning then every viewpoint here, yours included, fails as they are all from a solitary viewpoint, regardless of if they are shared by a great many others.
Well you're basically describing exclusive content, which is similar to saying "I want a good portion of gamers to be absolutely crushed and incapable of completing this chunk of content." Which is not terrible in limited quantity, but inefficient (the same manhours are spent making the content, but fewer players get to experience it.) Given that you've already done every quest in STO, hopefully you can appreciate the need for efficient content development. Difficulty sliders efficiently let one set of existing content provide challenge to a wider range of players.
Difficulty sliders don't mean repeating content. That's not an ideal implementation. Games should aim for something more like CoX, where the difficulty settings exist from the start and are rewarding enough that that's how you advance the fastest. DDO's forced-to-repeat difficulty isn't optimal. Your STO comments seem more disgruntled by the overriding issue of content quantity, which makes your challenge comments sound a little off.
As for viewpoints? Everyone's statements are made from an imperfect point of view, but that doesn't mean there aren't narrow and broad views. Asking for games to be specifically tailored to your precise tastes and skill is a narrow request. Discussing the perceived desires of more people than oneself is a broader -- which is why I discuss things like tweakable difficulty instead of demanding that every game is perfectly tailored to my skill (because that'd be far too hard for the majority of players, and the games would never sell.)
I suppose in a convoluted way that makes my desire for "the broad view" motivated by selfish factors -- the desire to see companies stay profitable so they can keep making me games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I feel like I opened Pandora's box. Anyway, I've read a lot of interesting points. It seems "Ganking" or "Griefing" as some have mentioned in this thread, is really all about the person behind the game, rather than a list of reasons that can be broken down.
Getting inside the head of a ganker is like getting inside the head of a murderer from my spin on the arguments here. Some want bone-crushing brutality, some want more even fighting grounds, similar to a code of battle, while others have no opinions at all, and just do it for fun. In other words, we can't really discern why people gank. We just know they do. And maybe that's the appeal to it and PvP in general. The fear that we don't completely understand why people do what they do. They just do.
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Come Join us at www.globalequestria.com - Meet other fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!
EDIT: Let me summarize the good parts for you people:
Some gank because they think that that is what you are supposed to do when you are playing on a PvP realm. Some gank because they enjoy causing grief and take pleasure in trying to ruin the game experience for others. Some gank when they see red text above a target and don’t really look at the level of the target. Some gank as an act of revenge. Some gank for the sport Some gank to provoke a response from the opposite faction in order to start some World PvP Some gank for no particular reason or because they are bored. Some gank for the pure fact that the other player gives some sort of honor (pvp ranking stat). Even if it is only a point or two.
My opinion? I have to agree here. I think people gank mostly because they feel that's what they're supposed to do. In the many PvP games I have played there is actually little "ganking" unless one of the above issues are met. My most fondest memory of being ganked was on a PvP server in World of Warcraft. I played an Alliance priest on a server that favored the Horde. I wanted a challenge and a priest was what I considered the most difficult class to level since you have very few attacks and defenses to protect yourself (Fear being the only one, and it's almost always negated by Will of the Forsaken). Now understand all this I've said is opinion, but I digress. At any rate I was killing demons outside Astranaar when a Horde blood Elf came up and started killing them with me. At first we were getting along. I helped him and he helped me. Just after I helped him survive being ambushed, he turned around and killed me when I had my back turned. Needless to say, I simply shrugged it off and when I returned to my body he was long gone.
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Part of the problem i see with this article and even most of the responses is that the word ganking is used for everything and anything that refers to pvp, pvp is not ganking, raiding is not ganking, getting together with your clan mates and pking any enemy on sight is not ganking, faction and rvr pvp is not ganking, its just pvp wether its consentual or not dosnt matter
Now on the other hand getting together with clan mates and pking everyone warping into the zone however is ganking. camping the spawn points is ganking kinda but i think thats strecthing it a bit, same with rez killing war tags in l2 its close but not really a gank imo
then again I only play mmo's for the pvp content so i'm kinda biased
Comments
I don't gank, but it doesn't bother me when others do. It is after all part of the universe you play in, if you were really at war in a brutal unforgiving world, you wouldn't let an enemy live because they were puny, you'd nuke them anyway.
It makes no sense to me for players to complain about getting beaten up by bigger, stronger characters, they have had the same time etc. to get good, they just haven't done so (coming to a game 3 years late can have this effect).
If you don't like the consequences of PvP just don't play games that focus on it. Go for something more PvE, or go for WoW and don't go on the PvP servers... simples really.
WOW raids fail all the time to defeat the bosses they're trying to kill.
Casual players fail all the time to defeat the casual content they attempt (the type of stuff the raiding players never die at.)
Players aren't chasing after games where they fail all the time, but they quickly tired of games where they win all the time.
So your statement just seems outright wrong.
I don't think it's so much my statement being wrong as it is your perspective being way out of whack. In both examples you give the parts I wrote in quotes still ring true with respect in particular to the latter quote. One only has to look at global chat or on forums for the evidence. And you might want to tone down the extremist remarks, or at least do so if you're trying to intimate a sentiment from something I wrote. I said nothing about chasing a game where you fail all the time. More appropriate to what I wrote would be that I am saying games where you fail a significant amount of the time are gone. Whether it be at raids or in just normal PvE.
Games aren't built or scaled with any measure of inherent danger when you leave so-called civilized areas anymore. Everything is numbered and ordered so that the player can't fail unless they are incompetent or maybe once of twice if they are a complete newbie to MMOs. You may like that (or not), but I personally don't.
But you have your opinion and I have mine. From reading a few of yours in the past (yes, I remember many of the forum handles and the views expressed so no I'm not stalking you) we don't agree on much. Which is perfectly ok.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Well the strategic and tactical players aren't playing games with ganking/open PVP for the most part. The ones who want competitive PVP play GW, WOW, or (more likely) an entirely different genre where non-skill factors are minimized and truly competitive play emerges.
A player interested in strategy and tactics wouldn't be all that interested in a game where the vastly majority of conflict is one-sided.
We who play EVE would disagree with you. If you find yourself in a fair fight, either you or your opponent is doing something wrong.
When all the marbles are on the table, there can be only one reasonable outcome, winning overwhelmingly. When there's nothing at stake as in the games you referred to then "fair" combat can be considered reasonable.
You response makes no sense at all. He is talking about strategy and you are talking about loss.
Kyleran you are saying that in EVE people do not want fair fights because the cost is to high. That basically means that strategy is all but void. That means that EVE is a straight resource development game. Inherently, what you are stating is that people who play EVE try and gather as much power as possible and pick on people who have less power.
I am sorry but that sounds like a game filled with bullies who are afraid to test skill in an equal game like chess. I prefer chess. I feel bad for people who only play games they are assured to win. Playing basketball against small children has to get boring after awhile.
Then you feel bad for about 80-90% of MMO gamers. The days of an understanding of "If I lose, I must learn from it and try harder next time" are gone. It has been replaced by "If I lose, then the other guy cheated, or the game is unbalanced, or it was a bug." This started a while back with every child in any kind of league/sport getting a trophy for "participation" so they would feel good about themselves. Those kids are now young adults and the "target audience" for MMOs. Sure, there are a few older than them who believe the same (my thought is those are the ones who always lost at competitions when younger) but on the whole, as a world, the feeling of entitlement to victory with no possible loss has grown. In gaming and in society.
MMO companies are businesses first and foremost and will try to attract the most flies. So they have, of late, almost universally adopted the "path of least resistance" philosophy in game design sum total.
I always new if I made stupid decisions and didn't think things through that I had a Dungeon Master that would kill my character and I'd have to roll/role a new one. It made my enjoyment of playing D&D that much more memorable. The vast majority of gamers, and more importantly developers these days, have no idea what that feeling is like and if you try to explain to them they immediately get turned off when they realize you can lose everything.
So... here we are. Easy mode 2.0. I'm not saying, btw, that players should lose their characters upon death, as I know some idiot will try to construe what I wrote into that. There is, however, a marked difference in the overall difficulty level of first Gen MMOs and post 2004 ones.
I am not sure if people have changed all that much in the last 15 years. I am also not sure it is because many new players never played pen and paper games. I am always hesitant to make broad sweeping generalizations about a group of people; I have found little good can come from it.
SWG was my first MMO so I am a bit limited in knowledge when it comes to some of older MMOs.
Inherently though what you are saying is the exact reason why death penalty and looting people in PVP can be a very bad thing. If people lose a bunch when they lose a fight they will only fight when they are assured they can win. The game becomes about risk/reward calculations and not about playing the game to have fun.
It does seem very hard to balance though. How does a game balance risk/reward with compelling game play? I have no clue.
Nothing wrong with a difference of opinion. I would be interested to see the results of a questionaire of sorts that asked 10 older (30+) gamers who had played Advanced D&D 2nd ed. and 10 younger (25 and under) players who hadn't but had played other video games how they feel about a death penalty like that of Asheron's Call for example. I have a biased belief that the younger crowd would most probably react in a "why do I have to be penalized!!" fashion that the older gamers.
But yeah, I agree, nothing is 100% when it comes to statements like these and there are always exceptions (I guess that would be 100%, no? :P )
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I don't hate the player that kills me in a PvP environment when it's based that way. I hate the play that kills me and then griefs me to ruin my experience for cheap thrills. I honestly say that if a game is PvP based and you happen to come across someone and kill them, don't be a douche and stick around to kill them repeatedly. At least in darkfall if they take what little I was carrying I wont be carrying much outside of a weapon when i return so it's not like they gain anything by repeatedly killing me.
I wait for the ganker or fight to come to me so that it is more of a challenge. But I think #1 is the best reason, people think they are supposed to on a PvP server.
People gank because they like to win in PvP and in order to do that they must use numbers to their advantage or be of a much higher level and than their victim.
Gankers are just the low-lifes of the internet.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
You would be surprised at the amount of people that are "broken" inside.
I have never been interested in killing other peoples avatars in my online games, I prefer to make friends or simply avoid those who are unfriendly.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
You would be surprised at the amount of people that are "broken" inside.
I have never been interested in killing other peoples avatars in my online games, I prefer to make friends or simply avoid those who are unfriendly.
I'd pay to see you two play RISK or Axis and Allies against each other,
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
/agree
Ganking is like "happy slapping" in real life and then post your cellphone footage on youtube >:(
PvP should have a meaningful reason (siege for control of a castle or fortress, or resource control). If PvP is just lame and empty "If it moves and not one of us" I'll pass....
In most mainstream games, if someone is attackable (red) then they are likely the enemy in the context of the game. So why wouldn't you kill the enemy in any way possible?
In FFA games, very few people kill everyone they see. Mostly because they don't know who they're messing with, what skills he may have, if his guild will come to his aid, etc.
Which is the irony when it comes to those who whine about pvp and FFA games. FFA skill based games = less ganking and more caution. Faction theme park games = more ganking due to no consequences.
Playing a game where you know you can be killed and then whining about it when it happens is pathetic.
The Official God FAQ
In MMOs killing is killing. What is the difference between killing 800 Hillmen NPCs for a trait in LOTRO or a player killing another players Avatar in a PVP based game ? Or a player dieing in combat to another player or to an NPC ?
What's all the fuss ?
WOW raids fail all the time to defeat the bosses they're trying to kill.
Casual players fail all the time to defeat the casual content they attempt (the type of stuff the raiding players never die at.)
Players aren't chasing after games where they fail all the time, but they quickly tired of games where they win all the time.
So your statement just seems outright wrong.
I don't think it's so much my statement being wrong as it is your perspective being way out of whack. In both examples you give the parts I wrote in quotes still ring true with respect in particular to the latter quote. One only has to look at global chat or on forums for the evidence. And you might want to tone down the extremist remarks, or at least do so if you're trying to intimate a sentiment from something I wrote. I said nothing about chasing a game where you fail all the time. More appropriate to what I wrote would be that I am saying games where you fail a significant amount of the time are gone. Whether it be at raids or in just normal PvE.
Games aren't built or scaled with any measure of inherent danger when you leave so-called civilized areas anymore. Everything is numbered and ordered so that the player can't fail unless they are incompetent or maybe once of twice if they are a complete newbie to MMOs. You may like that (or not), but I personally don't.
But you have your opinion and I have mine. From reading a few of yours in the past (yes, I remember many of the forum handles and the views expressed so no I'm not stalking you) we don't agree on much. Which is perfectly ok.
Sorry, I suppose it's ironic (and disappointing of myself) to have made an extremist remark in a post whose intent was to point out your extremist remark (that most players weren't seeking challenge,) because they are. The entire point of games is to hit a "challenge sweet spot". Too easy and the game is tic-tac-toe: easily "solved" and discarded. Too hard and the game beats the player up and chases them away.
"Failing a significant amount of time" describes that sweet spot, but fails on account of it being from a solitary viewpoint (likely that of a veteran MMORPG gamer.) The sweet spot of casual MMORPG gamers is different from that of veterans, hence the most successful MMORPGs are the ones that min/max the situation and offer a lot of casual-friendly content (to their majority audience) along with some veteran-friendly content (for the smaller audience of vets.)
It's fair to criticize this only if you're suggesting that at every point in gameplay there are difficulty options provided to players to let them opt into challenging gameplay. If all you're saying is "I want my leveling to have a difficulty slider so that 80% of the game's content isn't way too easy, as a result of a game having to appeal to casuals" then I'd completely agree.
But the point of this post and my last is more to dispute the idea that 80-90% of gamers aren't seeking challenge (and claim cheating/imbalance when they find challenge) because that's simply not true. They're not seeking a game which frequently beats them down, but one where that sweet spot of challenge is attained.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Regardless of WHY people "gank" or go out to pick fights with no risk to themselves, my experience of FFA pvp has been pretty much a waste of time, max level people hanging around low level zones hunting newbies to one shot. I'm not moaning about it, but I have ruled out playing any other FFA pvp game as this isn't the kind of gameplay that interests me, I personally would gain no enjoyment from acting in such a manner after enduring hours of ganking before I can return the favour and kill other people in low level zones and making their route to max level as painful as possible. Altering it from a level based to a skill based system doesn't really alter this, people with a low skill level will be just as helpless as those of a low level.
Perhaps FFA pvp games don't need to be this way but it's my opinion that this is the mentality of enough FFA pvp gamers for me to avoid such titles. Overall the adding of a FFA element to a game makes me think, this game will be more of a pain in the ass to play than fun.
FFA pvp does serve a niche market, I guess I'm not part of that market as the cons outweigh the pro's for me personally. Perhaps if the FFA community behaved a bit "better" towards new players that niche would be a little larger. Low levels of interest in FFA pvp games are pretty much down to peoples preconceptions that enough of the community will be out to make their time in the game as miserable as possible. Making the process of a player trying out a new genre of FFA pvp as painful as possible will make the vast majority of players realise that is is the worst of their fears and not worth considering further. The argument "We all had to deal with it, so just put up with it and accept the pain, trust us in a few months of this crap the game does improve" certainly isn't the best way to get people into your style of MMO.
Looking at someones analogy of Risk or A&A, would I enjoy joining a game partway through with 5 armies where the other players had 200 and went out of their way to take me on? Would I keep rejoining such a game after every time I was eradicated in the hope of surviving to the point where it became fun? I'd simply look for something else that welcomed a new player rather than drove them away.
Its really simple. People gank, because they are boring.
Exciting people don't gank. Its boring, tedious, and did I say boring?
I'm assuming by ganking we are talking about someone who has no business in a particular area(other than ganking) who is going around terrorizing the people.
No one is killing low lvl NPCs who give no experience or loot. Loads of people love to kill low level players who give no exp or loot.
Ganking isn't PvP. PvP involves risk. Ganking is done, because the person can't handle content their own level.
No one is killing low lvl NPCs who give no experience or loot. Loads of people love to kill low level players who give no exp or loot.
Ganking isn't PvP. PvP involves risk. Ganking is done, because the person can't handle content their own level.
QFT
The reason people gank, if you ask me, is to humor that sick and twisted mind set of being a human, we like to make others feel smaller to us, and alot of people were killed by some other player and take it out on a weaker one to get their jollies.
The fact is, people are animals, we enjoy to see things squirm, the urge to gank is in almost every player and only the players who think it through are the "reasonable players". Usually people feel weak in other aspects of their lives so when they play a game that they can make others feel weak they thrive on it, its like when your little and you burn ants with a magnifying glass, its the same basic concept, people think its funny.
Games Waiting for: FF14, Tera Online, Blade and Soul, and Rift
Actually animals don't really like to see seems squirm. It is more like because we are human we like to see things squirm.
Cats might play with mice before eventually killing them, but in the natural animal world. Killing is done swift and "merciful" as there are no unnecessary intents to prolong the suffering or fight a losing battle.
When animals hunt for food it is methodical out of necessity, and when they fight for territory they usually do not go so far as to make a kill unless necessary. Young animals fight each other to learn how to survive, but they rarely break skin much less kill their own sibling in the process.
Truthfully, humans are cruel because we are more self aware and developed complex thinking. People think killer instinct is something primal, but truthfully wild animals only possess survival instinct as they usually only act violent when threatened.
Actually animals don't really like to see seems squirm. It is more like because we are human we like to see things squirm.
Cats might play with mice before eventually killing them, but in the natural animal world. Killing is done swift and "merciful" as there are no unnecessary intents to prolong the suffering or fight a losing battle.
When animals hunt for food it is methodical out of necessity, and when they fight for territory they usually do not go so far as to make a kill unless necessary. Young animals fight each other to learn how to survive, but they rarely break skin much less kill their own sibling in the process.
Truthfully, humans are cruel because we are more self aware and developed complex thinking. People think killer instinct is something primal, but truthfully wild animals only possess survival instinct as they usually only act violent when threatened.
Really, killer instinct is most defiantly primal, as primal is how everything began, whats the dividing line between being a survivalist and a killer?, reason?, animals don't give excuses they kill out of necessity, same with murderers, whether it be necessity for money, power, or an urge to just see something die(psychopaths). So where do you put your dividing line if thats what you believe?
Tell the three people who died unecessary deaths to that killer whale at the park Im sure they will be concerned that it was the whales "survival instinct", animals kill out of an impulse in their brains the same as humans do, their reason is just more shrouded because their intelligence isn't to what we consider the standard, its just 2 of the same examples put in different worlds, the animal and human ones, its the same thing, just with different words.
Games Waiting for: FF14, Tera Online, Blade and Soul, and Rift
Is it confusing that NPCs aren't Humans? NPCs aren't concerned with having fun, nor do they pay subscriptions. NPCs are designed to be ganked.
Without delving into details:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I guess alot of this really depends on how one defines "ganking"... and the context of the game in which it is occuring.
As a disclaimer....I don't do PvP much in MMORPG's.....as in general I find they don't do PvP very well....about the only exception I've personaly seen is WWII Online (which is more like a persistant FPS). I like PvP, but when I want to experience I go to FPS games like the Battlefield series or to PBEM strategy games....things that are specificaly designed to deliver that kind of experience and do it well.
To me, "ganking" pretty much indicates killing of another player in a situation where they pretty much have ZERO chance to fight back or escape...in a game environment WHERE SUCH THINGS AREN'T EXPECTED as part of the game. Thus it pretty much always has a negative connotation. Now, this isn't everyones definition of "ganking" and some people might engage in what they would refer to as "ganking" .... when the activity is something that I would regard as entirely appropriate given the environment...and thus not anything I would personaly consider "ganking". Note...there are plenty of games where killing another player where they have next to zero chance to respond is part of the expected environment and design. In those sort of games...I, personaly, wouldn't even consider that sort of activity as "ganking".
For instance....in WWII Online....(like in some instances in Battlefield games).... I wouldn't consider killing another player in a situation where they were pretty close to defenseless as "ganking" or even think it were really possible to "gank" anyone...except maybe is some sort of tutorial area. Part of those games is to essentialy put the opposing side in a position where they can't effectively defend a particular position...because you've overwhelmed them with numbers, superior equipment or superior position. A big part of the effective tactics of those sort of games actualy involves killing people when they don't even know where you are...or that there were hostiles in the area.... or are ready and setup for combat.
In essence "Get there firstest with the mostest and don't tell no one you're coming".
I haven't played EVE, myself but it sounds like you guys are talking about the difference between Strategy, Tactics and Logistics.
Strategy = The art of winning conflicts....that includes seeking to define the terms of the conflict ....and the aquisition and build-up of resources to be used in the conflict. Usualy when you talk strategy...you talk on a Grand Scale....meaning it's more about winning wars then fire-fights.
Tactics = The art of deploying, manuvering and utilizing the forces you have localy available to win a particular fight/battle. Usualy when people talk tactics it's pretty small scale...like moving squads or individual soldiers/vehicles....meaning it's more about winning a fire-fight...not a war.
Logistics = The art of organizing & moving supplies, war material and personnel in a theatre of conflict to give your forces an advantage in engaging the enemy.
I believe it's been stated that expert generals study Logistics more then anything else, as they often are the key to winning conflicts. However, it probably takes a very distinct personality to derive huge amounts of enjoyment from figuring out the most efficient way to deliver 5,000 tons of ammo from point A to point B.
WOW raids fail all the time to defeat the bosses they're trying to kill.
Casual players fail all the time to defeat the casual content they attempt (the type of stuff the raiding players never die at.)
Players aren't chasing after games where they fail all the time, but they quickly tired of games where they win all the time.
So your statement just seems outright wrong.
I don't think it's so much my statement being wrong as it is your perspective being way out of whack. In both examples you give the parts I wrote in quotes still ring true with respect in particular to the latter quote. One only has to look at global chat or on forums for the evidence. And you might want to tone down the extremist remarks, or at least do so if you're trying to intimate a sentiment from something I wrote. I said nothing about chasing a game where you fail all the time. More appropriate to what I wrote would be that I am saying games where you fail a significant amount of the time are gone. Whether it be at raids or in just normal PvE.
Games aren't built or scaled with any measure of inherent danger when you leave so-called civilized areas anymore. Everything is numbered and ordered so that the player can't fail unless they are incompetent or maybe once of twice if they are a complete newbie to MMOs. You may like that (or not), but I personally don't.
But you have your opinion and I have mine. From reading a few of yours in the past (yes, I remember many of the forum handles and the views expressed so no I'm not stalking you) we don't agree on much. Which is perfectly ok.
Sorry, I suppose it's ironic (and disappointing of myself) to have made an extremist remark in a post whose intent was to point out your extremist remark (that most players weren't seeking challenge,) because they are. The entire point of games is to hit a "challenge sweet spot". Too easy and the game is tic-tac-toe: easily "solved" and discarded. Too hard and the game beats the player up and chases them away.
"Failing a significant amount of time" describes that sweet spot, but fails on account of it being from a solitary viewpoint (likely that of a veteran MMORPG gamer.) The sweet spot of casual MMORPG gamers is different from that of veterans, hence the most successful MMORPGs are the ones that min/max the situation and offer a lot of casual-friendly content (to their majority audience) along with some veteran-friendly content (for the smaller audience of vets.)
It's fair to criticize this only if you're suggesting that at every point in gameplay there are difficulty options provided to players to let them opt into challenging gameplay. If all you're saying is "I want my leveling to have a difficulty slider so that 80% of the game's content isn't way too easy, as a result of a game having to appeal to casuals" then I'd completely agree.
But the point of this post and my last is more to dispute the idea that 80-90% of gamers aren't seeking challenge (and claim cheating/imbalance when they find challenge) because that's simply not true. They're not seeking a game which frequently beats them down, but one where that sweet spot of challenge is attained.
Then I might suggest that you take your dispute to the game developers and not me as I am not making the games with such thinking in mind: They are. I am only pointing out what I have seen happen over the last 6 years or so and commenting thusly. While I do not think a "slider" would work in practice (sounds ok in theory) and note that DDO has done so in an off way (having 3(4) difficulty levels for its dungeon instances with the player having to complete the easier setting before running it again at a higher one; which by the way is not fun to me as I'm not a fan of running the same content over and over in hopes it is more challenging). STO is talking of a slider as well, which again, isn't enticing to me (as I've literally done every working mission they have in game now) as I'd rather the content just be challenging (and me fail a few times and have to figure out tactics to defeat it other than going in with guns blazing) in the first.
By your reasoning then every viewpoint here, yours included, fails as they are all from a solitary viewpoint, regardless of if they are shared by a great many others.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Well you're basically describing exclusive content, which is similar to saying "I want a good portion of gamers to be absolutely crushed and incapable of completing this chunk of content." Which is not terrible in limited quantity, but inefficient (the same manhours are spent making the content, but fewer players get to experience it.) Given that you've already done every quest in STO, hopefully you can appreciate the need for efficient content development. Difficulty sliders efficiently let one set of existing content provide challenge to a wider range of players.
Difficulty sliders don't mean repeating content. That's not an ideal implementation. Games should aim for something more like CoX, where the difficulty settings exist from the start and are rewarding enough that that's how you advance the fastest. DDO's forced-to-repeat difficulty isn't optimal. Your STO comments seem more disgruntled by the overriding issue of content quantity, which makes your challenge comments sound a little off.
As for viewpoints? Everyone's statements are made from an imperfect point of view, but that doesn't mean there aren't narrow and broad views. Asking for games to be specifically tailored to your precise tastes and skill is a narrow request. Discussing the perceived desires of more people than oneself is a broader -- which is why I discuss things like tweakable difficulty instead of demanding that every game is perfectly tailored to my skill (because that'd be far too hard for the majority of players, and the games would never sell.)
I suppose in a convoluted way that makes my desire for "the broad view" motivated by selfish factors -- the desire to see companies stay profitable so they can keep making me games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I feel like I opened Pandora's box. Anyway, I've read a lot of interesting points. It seems "Ganking" or "Griefing" as some have mentioned in this thread, is really all about the person behind the game, rather than a list of reasons that can be broken down.
Getting inside the head of a ganker is like getting inside the head of a murderer from my spin on the arguments here. Some want bone-crushing brutality, some want more even fighting grounds, similar to a code of battle, while others have no opinions at all, and just do it for fun. In other words, we can't really discern why people gank. We just know they do. And maybe that's the appeal to it and PvP in general. The fear that we don't completely understand why people do what they do. They just do.
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Come Join us at www.globalequestria.com - Meet other fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!
Part of the problem i see with this article and even most of the responses is that the word ganking is used for everything and anything that refers to pvp, pvp is not ganking, raiding is not ganking, getting together with your clan mates and pking any enemy on sight is not ganking, faction and rvr pvp is not ganking, its just pvp wether its consentual or not dosnt matter
Now on the other hand getting together with clan mates and pking everyone warping into the zone however is ganking. camping the spawn points is ganking kinda but i think thats strecthing it a bit, same with rez killing war tags in l2 its close but not really a gank imo
then again I only play mmo's for the pvp content so i'm kinda biased